Thursday, 16 October 2025

It's Niche Jim!

As Napo members set off for Eastbourne and the AGM, I thought I'd reflect upon two recent conversations with friends, one a former colleague and another via an entirely different route. The subject of this blog came up with the former saying "I don't read it - I used to, but it's niche" and the other saying "Way too niche!" 

Yes, I get that. I've always felt it's been a useful platform for recusants to gather and lets be honest, they are 'moving on' and not being replaced. I recall a few years ago chatting to an academic who had persuaded some of his students to attend the annual Bill McWilliams lecture in Cambridge. I asked him if he'd ever come across the blog, or if students had? No was the answer and that sort of surprised me because any idle google search of 'probation' will bring the blog up near the top. What does that say about curiosity generally, not to mention 'professional curiosity', or lack of as frequently highlighted in HMI inspection reports?. 

In recent years I've had occasion to chat with several academics delivering probation training at the three contracted universities and it sounded pretty dismal to me. The feeling was that for many students it was viewed as a very cost-effective route to employment other than probation with more than a suspicion that what might be termed serious 'study' not being really required. It was surprising to hear that significant numbers hardly ever attend lectures and are almost unkown to tutors. Essays can often show scant evidence of research, sources are routinely 'surprising' and many therefore achieve dismal marks. When challenged regarding the recording actual probation work, there was a strong suspicion of students being 'creative' in what was actually being undertaken. I can fully understand how a wide-ranging and discursive probation blog wouldn't feature much on the radar.

Interestingly, I notice that the contract for training, value £93million, is currently being tendered:-

"This requirement is for the delivery of the Community Justice graduate diploma as part of the PQiP programme. The PQiP is the mandatory training route for all Probation Officers that are employed by the Probation Service. The Offender Management Act 2007 s10 sets out the Secretary of State for Justice's right to publish guidelines about qualifications, experience or training required to be a Probation Officer, with effect from 1 April 2016 and as set out in statutory guidelines, all Trainee Probation Officers (Learners) must undertake the Professional Qualification in Probation to qualify and perform the work of a Probation Officer. HMPPS are the only employer of Probation Officers, and the PQiP programme is the only route for training Probation Officers in England and Wales. The PQiP programme consists of a BA Hons degree or graduate diploma in Community Justice and a Level 5 vocational qualification in Probation Practice.

The academic components of the PQIP that will be delivered by the Contractor will comprise of a Level 6 academic qualification, with Level 4 and Level 5 academic components used to give advance standing onto the core programme (Level 6). The PQiP learning will be delivered through cohorts of learners on a 6 monthly intake cycle, through 4 entry routes; Probation Services Officer Progression (PSOP), Standard PQiP full-time (post-graduate), Standard PQiP (post-graduate) part-time; and a full-time PQiP non-graduate route. The part-time routes can take between 21-30 months and full-time routes can take between 15-27 months depending on learners' prior learning levels.

The service commencement is estimated to start in March 2027, following the mobilisation phase which will include developing and finalising the curriculum and ensuring the course is appropriately accredited."    
   

I understand that in addition to the current providers Sheffield Hallam, DeMontfort and Plymouth, several others have expressed interest and there's a rumour applicants might even include the likes of Sodexo!  It's always struck me as somewhat alarming that all the current academic institutions happily agreed to bind their staff from making any public statement deemed critical of HMPPS, MoJ or government policy! So much for academic freedom and no wonder much of the criminal justice system is in such a mess if one chunk of academia with detailed inside knowledge that might be deemed critical is prohibited from speaking up. It also got me thinking about academic papers generally. I've often wondered who they are written for and who indeed will ever read them? 

In running this 'niche' blog for a long time, I've necessarily had reason to sift through many papers and journals and boy are most pretty impenetrable. Those that might be viewed as consise and make a strong case in plainish language are rare in my experience. I would say however that the blog has served to bring much academic endeavour to a wider audience, but sadly there's growing evidence that the job no longer requires it. Maybe it never did, but however it happened, there was at least a shared probation ethos, but I'm not so sure any more. I guess it may have just become irrelevant and a  'niche' concept, but at least I can say we tried to keep the flame alive and the blog continues for as long as recusants want it to.       

Wednesday, 15 October 2025

Can Consistency live with Creativity?

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

What should the ‘independence’ of IAPs look like? 

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

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

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

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

2. Why does MoJ/HMPPS now want IAPs? 

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

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

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

3. Are there other potential considerations? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 i) National infrastructure: 

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

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

 ii) Local delivery – work with individual IAP residents:

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

Prescribe WHAT is to be achieved, but only Advise HOW it should be achieved: 
  • The commissioner should specify, wisely, the operational outcomes – the measures of what success looks like – and Prescribe that this is WHAT it requires from its independent providers – 
  • But although it might offer Advice, it should avoid prescribing HOW those outcomes should be achieved, because working with individual residents is – of course! – an individualised service. 
  • For example: You commission the taxi, the destination and the agreed price, but you don’t then ‘backseat drive’ the driver through every step in the journey. 
The difficulty is in the application of this principle within the ‘messy reality’ of the AP world - indeed in Probation work generally – especially while MoJ/HMPPS continues to make a poor job of defining and managing the outcomes it wants for Probation. However, I have previously demonstrated, both in principle and in my own past practice, how the core outcomes of mainstream Probation work, the Three Purposes of Probation, can be defined, managed, implemented and even inspected. 

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

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

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

6. For example ….. 

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

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

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

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

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

7. Why is this all very difficult? 

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

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

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

8. Summing up: 

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

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

Andrew Bridges 
Strategic Director, National Approved Premises Association CIC 
December 2023

Tuesday, 14 October 2025

Is There Hope?

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

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

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

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

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

Hope Street: Frequently Asked Questions About One Small Thing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.What is Hope Street? One Small Thing has built Hope Street, a residential community for women and their children in Hampshire. Hope Street pilots a new approach to working with women involved in the justice system. From within a healing, trauma-informed, residential environment, women and their children have access to a range of specialist support including mental health, domestic abuse and substance use services. At Hope Street women have access to: 
  • A safe, 24 hour staffed residential Hub, purpose built and specifically designed to create a trauma informed and trauma responsive environment for women and their children 
  • Individually tailored programmes designed to enable women to address a wide range of issues in their lives that have resulted in them becoming involved with the justice system 
  • Eleven move-on supported Hope Houses for women leaving the Hub in preparation for return to their own home 
  • Ongoing outreach community-based support for women and their families once they have returned to their own home.
Hope Street is also for the local community to access a community café space and group activities. As well as the improved wellbeing of women and children, and benefits to the community, by working with women to rebuild their lives, we will also see a reduction in crime and reoffending. 

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

After a short sentence, of only a few weeks, they are left with no family and no home and in a much worse situation, compounded by the trauma of prison and with little support to assist them in rebuilding their lives. A gender-specific and community-based alternative is needed if we are to create a more effective, successful and supportive pathway for women. The core and root issues addressed with a trauma informed approach ultimately means better outcomes for women and their children. Hope Street is backed by the evidence and is in line with Government policy: In June 2018, the Government’s Female Offender Strategy identified four strategic priorities: 
  • fewer women entering the justice system; 
  • fewer women in custody, especially on short-term sentences; 
  • more women managed in the community successfully; 
  • better conditions for women in custody. 
In June 2019 the Farmer Review for Women was published, and throughout the report there is huge emphasis on the urgent need to deliver a viable alternative to custody for most women who commit non-violent crimes but who invariably end up in our prison system. 

8.How is what you are providing different to the Governments planned Residential Women’s Centres (RWCs)? Plans for the Government’s Residential Women’s Centre released so far suggests it will be run by Probation and accommodate all women who would have been sentenced for 12 months or less. The provision will be short stay accommodation with a 12-week course. Hope Street is different because:
  • The Government’s residential women’s centre is proposed to house women who would have gone on to receive a short custodial sentence. This misses a large group of women. Women will be able to stay at Hope Street instead of being unnecessarily sent to custody on remand prior to sentencing, if they are eligible for release from prison but this is not possible due to lack of accommodation, or so they can complete community service with somewhere safe and supportive to stay. We know 20% of women in prison are on remand3 and in July 2021 77% of women leaving the largest women’s prison in England and Wales faced homelessness.
  • Hope Street will include a network of housing, Hope Houses, across Hampshire, allowing us to support many more women and over the long term rather than for just a 12 week period. 
  • Services will be run by One Small Thing as an independent charity. This means that our priority can be the women we support rather than meeting any external targets. Women from minoritised groups who may have distrust of Government services, can be reassured that we are independent. By taking a positive, compassionate and trauma-informed approach, the aim is to achieve better outcomes for women, their children and society. 
9.Who is it for? Hope Street aims to be a community-based alternative to women receiving short custodial sentences, being unnecessarily imprisoned on remand or released to homelessness. Most women being sent to prison are without question some of the most disadvantaged in our society, have not committed violent offences and are not a risk to society: 
  • Most women entering prison to serve a sentence (72%) have committed a nonviolent offence. 
  • More women are sent to prison to serve a sentence for theft than for violence against the person, robbery, sexual offences, fraud, drugs, and motoring offences combined. 
  •  51% of women were sentenced to six months and 64% of women were sentenced to 12 months or less April to June 2021.  
  • More than 17,500 children were estimated to be separated from their mother by imprisonment in 2020. 
  • Nearly 60% of women in prison and under community supervision in England and Wales are victims of domestic abuse. This is likely to be an underestimate because many women fear disclosing abuse.  
  • Nearly half of women reported needing help with a drug problem on entry to prison—compared with nearly three in 10 men.
  • Women are much more likely than men to self-harm whilst in prison. In 2020, women made up 22% of all self-harm incidents despite making up only 4% of the prison population.
10.Why Southampton? Of the 877 women arrested in Hampshire between 1 st November 2018 and 31st October 2019, 33% were from Southampton. Women from Southampton who receive a custodial sentence are sent out of area, often more than 60 miles away from their home, making it very difficult for their children and families to visit them. It therefore makes sense to prioritise Southampton as the preferred location for the Hope Street Hub because it has the greatest need. This is a significant region and it is not well-served at present, so there is an opportunity to make a positive difference. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, 13 October 2025

Napo AGM 2025

It's nearly time for the Napo AGM starting on Thursday afternoon and it's interesting to see what are the most important issues for members as recorded by the ballot results. Coming in at the top scoring 80 is:- 

Get us out of HMPPS

"This AGM notes the Probation Service is being used to mop up the overcrowding situation in our prisons without regard to our own role and probation ethos. Our management has been subsumed by prison staff and prison culture, diluting our professional integrity.

This AGM believes the Probation Service needs to retain its identity and professional standards by being truly independent from HMPPS. This AGM calls on Napo to campaign to remove us from HMPPS control and the wider Civil Service."

Next up with 68 votes is:- 

Labour must urgently deliver on its promise to review Probation Governance 

"Probation is in crisis and has been so for so long now that crisis seems routine. The HMPPS model of a combined prison and probation service is defunct, never having been fit for purpose. To coin a phrase, it is irredeemably flawed. In its manifesto for election, the now Labour Government promised a review of the governance of Probation. Our frustration that this has not been announced alongside the sentencing review cannot be overstated. 

The repeated MoJ excuse for inaction, that probation staff are weary of change, is hollow. Since TR, all changes to probation have been against the expressed wishes and good judgment of experts and practitioners. 

The repeated assertion that staff recruitment and retention will fill the void, is belied by the failure of attempts to secure this. Asking rats to board or remain on a sinking ship is a folly.

The promised review of the governance of Probation is urgently needed. Napo will communicate the urgent need for a review of Probation governance, as promised in the Labour manifesto, to the Minister, and campaign vigorously for it, keeping members and activists informed as to progress."

Then scoring 65 is:-

You can’t punish someone back to health

"There is a wealth of data, research and inspection reporting to demonstrate that Probation is a sick and traumatised organisation, and the toll that this is taking on our members is both unacceptable and unsustainable. 

The sickness absence data reflects this. Individuals are having their health and happiness wrecked. Wellbeing initiatives are laudable and beneficial but should complement, not replace, good Health and Safety practice. 

H&S is often derided, but with a workforce that is neither healthy nor safe, it’s time for the employer to desist from blaming the individual for their lack of resilience/yoga/mindfulness and get real with workloads, staff support and rewards. 

Napo has already won agreement from our employer that absence management policy should be pursued with more humanity and kindness. What is not clear to our members is whether this is percolating down through the organisation. Kind words at the top mean nothing if individuals are still subject to cruel and inflexible sickness management. Managers must be supported in exercising discretion in applying absence policies. 

Napo will demand from HMPPS a regular review of sickness absence management data and other evidence to firmly establish that management discretion in absence management processes is being encouraged and used."

Then scoring 61:-

Toolkits no longer fit for purpose

"With the advent of the ‘one size fits all programme’ and delivery reduced to High and Very High Risk clients, Community Offender Managers are left delivering toolkits on a 1-2-1 basis with increasing numbers of clients. 

Many of the toolkits, such as Maps for Change, are complex and difficult pieces of work that require a lot of time to prepare and deliver and training to deliver these toolkits effectively is inadequate. 

We call on Napo to demand that the employer consults on developing new toolkits and 1-2-1 work that are dynamic and easier to access. We also need better training to be able to deliver these interventions to a high and consistent standard to enable clients to engage with an effective change process."

Then scoring 59:-

Workload Stress should be recorded in RIDDOR

"This AGM notes with concern that workload stress, which can affect staff for more than three days sickness, is not recordable for Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), which undermines the seriousness of the condition of workload stress and wellbeing. This AGM agrees to raise this issue within the wider TUC movement, which will lead to a campaign to get workload stress with more than three days sickness absence recordable in RIDDOR."

Then scoring 53:-

OMiC Not Fit for Purpose!! 

"This AGM believes the OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) Model is not fit for purpose. Prisoners are commonly being released into the community without resettlement plans due to staff shortages in prison and in sentence management in the community. Probation staff in prisons are also feeling isolated and disenfranchised since their direct line management moved across to the Prison Governors, who may direct to prioritise prison targets, overriding the focus on resettlement planning. 

This AGM notes the introduction of short sentence legislation, such as SDS40 and HDC365, as well as the forthcoming Sentencing Review, namely FTR48, has only increased the pressure due to last minute notification of immediate releases on already limited probation resources, which is unsustainable. 

This AGM urges Napo to work immediately towards the cancellation of OMiC and return Prison Probation management to the Probation Service, helping us to regain our independence and get our voices back."

--oo00oo--

Those familiar with AGM preceedure will be aware that the running order will be slightly different as committee and network motions take precedence and compositing of motions is taken into account. I think we can take some satisfaction from the fact that all the above has been extensively discussed on here at various times, demonstrating the continuing relevance and value of the platform for topical debate and discussion. 

As I have previously mentioned, I'm no longer a member and cannot attend, but hopefully some readers may feel able to share on here thoughts and reflections, particularly in relation to keynote speakers including Liz Saville-Roberts MP, HMI Martin Jones and Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards. I will be in Eastbourne on Thursday at the Cornfield Garage Wetherspoons, certainly from 7pm and hope to meet a few colleagues old and new for a bevvy or two. Cheers.     

Sunday, 12 October 2025

Mic Drop

Rather happily, much of today's blog post presented itself yesterday via a readers contribution:- 

Some of us remember when Probation Officers were seconded to prisons. I do not believe the development of Offender Management Units or the later OMIC model has ever truly worked. My recollection is that OMIC was introduced primarily to reduce community probation caseloads by retaining individuals in custody, thereby lowering WMT figures. OMIC might have been effective if prisons had been properly resourced and if OMUs had taken full responsibility for pre-release and resettlement work. It was also a mistake to place Senior Probation Officers under the line management of prison governors, though some seemed to welcome the change for its status rather than substance. It’s always seemed a bit hush-hush if they received the prison pay bonuses we in the community did not.

The ethos and values of probation have undoubtedly been eroded by OMIC’s implementation, which stood in direct contrast to the earlier “end-to-end offender management” model probation had taken on a decade before. The simultaneous continued shift towards risk assessment and management alongside police-led models for managing RSOs and IOM cases further diluted probation’s rehabilitative role. I think the increase in electronic tagging and monitoring is only going to make this worse.

An excellent article by both a Probation Manager and a former Director of the Probation Institute makes a persuasive case for returning to the original offender management model, (without Probation Reset, Probation Impact, or OMIC which have since taken over), and restoring probation’s role as the commissioner of local services. This would allow a single Probation Practitioner to provide consistent support from custody to community, just as recommended by the original blueprint by Baron Patrick Carter in Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach.

The Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into Resettlement and Rehabilitation also focuses on breaking the cycle of reoffending through holistic, rehabilitative methods. Though it has not received much attention I have seen, the submissions are outstanding.

Professors Mike Maguire and Peter Raynor’s submission is particularly strong.They describe the collective failure of resettlement practice, worsened by the organisational upheaval of splitting, part-privatising, and later reunifying the Probation Service. They seem to argue that existing OMIC and resettlement structures prevent the continuity and relational focus essential for genuine rehabilitation, a view that’s hard to dispute.

A submission from a Probation Manager recalls the success of Probation Trusts and reinforces the need for probation as a vehicle for rehabilitation, transformation, and effective supervision. Their related and linked article offers vivid examples of real end-to-end offender management.  It is good this still exists, but it is achievable only through a stable, consistent, and professionally empowered probation workforce.

In what could best be described as a mic-drop on this entire subject I highly recommend Professor Rob Canton’s Probation as Social Work as shows how probation has been recast as a punitive agency, constrained by its alignment with prisons and shaped by risk-based systems, bias, and overreliance on generic interventions. The result is a service that was always destined to struggle.

Most of these authors are, or were, qualified probation officers, their views deserve to be heard. All are calling for an enhanced probation approach, to lead on resettlement from prison and to be coordinators of access community services. I didn’t intend to write an essay (nor did I read all of Napo’s commentary), but on this point, they are entirely right OMIC does not work, and in truth, it was never designed to work for probation. It has never been structured, resourced, or managed to support the prisoner as a client or enable probation to fulfil its purpose.

There are already enough credible voices pointing to what would work. Perhaps it’s time to bring them together with the Probation and Prison Chief Officers, David Lammy, HMIP, the Probation Institute, Napo, and a few renowned individuals, academics and practitioners with lived experience, keeping the rest of NOMS, HMPPS, and associated bureaucracy out of the room, and see what they produce.

The Napo 2025 AGM takes place from October 16th–18th in Eastbourne and online, with key figures such as Kim Thornden-Edwards and Martin Jones in attendance. I’ll want to be optimistic but I won’t be holding my breath.

Anon (Probation Officer)

--oo00oo--

It's interesting that the above takes us back to Rob Canton's 'mic drop' paper Probation as Social Work which I rather cheekily re-published in full over 4 posts in May last year and introduced thus:-
The latest Probation Journal carries an extremely important article by Professor Rob Canton and in my view should be regarded as essential reading for all probation staff past, present and future. I don't say this lightly and in an ideal world I'd rather hope it gained the attention of politicians and indeed anyone in positions of power and influence.

We find ourselves in the middle of an unprecedented prison, probation and criminal justice crisis and it's election year. Essentially this article sets out in forensic but clear detail much of how and why we got here and one would hope it convincingly makes the case for a fundamental rethink of the role and purpose of probation. In my opinion, failure to grasp the urgent need for change will inevitably mean that probation not only becomes increasingly irrelevant but most worryingly, entrenched as part of the problem.

Being conscious that the article may not be easily accessible for those who are not members of Napo, together with a desire to bring it to the attention of a wider audience, I've taken the liberty of sharing it in a number of posts.

But the issue of us being forcibly removed from our social work roots has been discussed on here many, many times. In searching the archives, I came across this from 2020 in response to a blog post:-

1. Did the removal of the Social Work requirement in 1997 move probation from a left wing to a right wing organisation? Yes. More accurately, it anchored the moves that had already taken place. 
2. If the social Work ethos belongs to the left, then its removal must surely cede possession to the right? Yes. Its now 'owned' in every sense by the MoJ/HMPPS, a control-and-command led profit-oriented structure.

3. Why does social work define anyone's political identity? For myself, it's tied up with whether we regard people as a commodity to be exploited or as part of the social fabric, to be cherished. The 'right' embraces control & command, monetisation, exploitation, profiteering - 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. The 'left' tends towards the nurturing, caring & sharing of peoples' experiences, cultures & lives, regardless as to whether its the fruits or the burdens that are being shared.

There you go, Bamber, there's my starter for ten.

Note 

"A "mic drop" is an act of triumphantly and dramatically dropping a microphone at the end of a performance or speech to signify a final, impressive, and unbeatable statement. Figuratively, it can also refer to making a decisive and impactful statement, argument, or action that leaves others speechless."

Saturday, 11 October 2025

OMiC is a failure!

I notice the following was published by Napo on Wednesday 8th October:-

OMIC Review


Napo has pushed for a fundamental review of OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) for years and we welcome in principle the recent announcement of this by HMPPS. OMIC has never worked as it was intended to. In far too many prisons across England and Wales staffing levels have been too low, with too much work expected of Probation staff, with constant change throughout the time of OMiC's existence, for example the following two developments that have been implemented by HMPPS in recent years. The line management of Senior Probation Officer's in Offender Management Units (OMUs) passing to Governor-grade staff in public sector Prisons, consistently opposed by Napo, has been incredibly problematic and stressful for those involved. The merger of Pre-Release Teams and OMUs has also increased the push/pull factors on role boundaries, job descriptions and spans of control for management and probation staff alike.

The review is being undertaken by means of 2 different surveys and face to face workshops. Unfortunately, the unions did not have sight of these documents until they were sent out to OMU and other Prison staff. Members have been contacting us regarding the length and suitability of questions in this survey, many telling us it's taking too much of their already scarce time to complete and they don't really know what they are being asked for. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the survey if it is disregarded, returned incomplete or incorrectly filled in. The survey results alone cannot become the sole basis for reconstruction if they are so flawed. If I can compare the survey to the foundations of a house we already seem to be heading for considerable subsidence.

We recently received a letter from the HMPPS senior leaders regarding this review, setting out the following aims:

Align with sentencing reform – so we can deliver the sentence progression requirements introduced by ISR without compromising public protection standards
Unfortunately we have not yet seen details of how this will look and the processes involved in order to try to mitigate the impact of these changes on our members. Napo continue to have significant concerns about the additional work this will require of Probation staff, in prisons as well as the community, and the basic feasibility of these 'progression' proposals in the current Sentencing Bill.
Release workforce capacity – streamline case management processes and rebalance prison and probation roles, thereby releasing some Probation Officer resource for deployment to priority areas of active public risk. 
While we have received assurances from HMPPS centrally that the redeployment of Probation staff in Prisons is not the object of this review we are receiving mixed messages as the above aim seems to be supporting such moves. Similarly, an ongoing activity timing review involving OMIC includes a separate survey of prison roles being undertaken as part of workforce planning, and we have been made aware some members of regional senior management are already telling people this will result in moving prison probation staff back to the field. Again, Napo has not been officially informed of these potentially dramatic changes which, in our view, is totally unacceptable practice and is not in the spirit of meaningful consultation. We will continue to support and represent our members working in Prisons who are being impacted by this chaotic approach being taken, or allowed to persist, by HMPPS. We will continue to bring pressure on the employer to ensure Napo and all other relevant trade unions are appropriately included going forwards. If you become aware of discussions or comments on the potential redeployment of Prison-based staff please notify us and ensure you raise it with your local Branch for inclusion on the local/regional meetings that take place between the trade unions and employer.
Provide operational consistency and quality – reduce model complexity, clarify roles for Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs), and embed a single, nationally understood way of working.
This is the most straightforward aim and Napo has no issues with this as it underpins the reasons for the review. The way in which this is being done, and the apparent failure of appropriate trade union consultation, is the issue.
Produce digital enablement – propose pragmatic adjustments to OASys/ARNS and hand over processes. 
While we agree with the sentiment, we would all love to be able to streamline OASys and the new ARNS assessment, we are sensible of the fact there still need to be a robust and accurate risk assessment and risk management plan in place for cases. We have very real concerns that community-based Probation staff will be left having to pick up more tasks if pre-release work is 'pragmatically adjusted' without careful consideration and planning on the impact of all involved.
Enable timely national implementation – by Spring 2026.
The review is expected to conclude by the end of the year, with implementation of agreed changes scheduled for Spring 2026, in line with Independent Sentencing Review recommendations.
Given the scope of the review, issues with the surveys and the lack of proper trade union consultation it is likely this a wholly unrealistic deadline. Napo is willing to work with the employer on behalf of our members but we need not only a seat at the table but access to significant information that seems to be currently withheld from us. This is not the kind of working relationship that helps support staff morale or retention.
We were informed that "Engagement sessions were underway with frontline staff, operational leaders, and key stakeholders providing valuable insights into current challenges and opportunities" These have now completed without giving the unions enough warning to be able to support our members to have meaningful engagement with them. This is a shame as it is vital to get your voices heard. I would urge members to report back to Napo with any issues, concerns and positives that come out of these sessions so we can be as informed as possible in order to support you. We are told that "Formal consultation with Trade Unions (POA, PGA, NTUS, and Probation TUs: NAPO, UNISON, GMB SCOOP) will follow once proposals are finalised."

We would argue we should be involved in helping to formulate these proposals instead of having to untangle the problems when they are implemented.

--oo00oo--

When the subject was mentioned the other day, it generated the following responses:-

hmmm, not a good look; it reads to me like napo whining about how they've been totally sidelined & completely outmanoeuvred by hmpps (again).

Agree, HMPPS couldn't care less what NAPO wants or thinks. But in all honesty from my experience, OMIC provides us with nothing at all, I don't see any value in Probation being in the Prisons and usually anything I need is provided by the Prison key workers. All over this blog people say we need to be distinct from Prisons so pull out all Probation and provide some actual work relief to officers in the community! I'd also tell the Prisons it's their responsibility to do all pre-release work including not being able to release anyone until they have secured accommodation.

On the subject of accommodation upon release, the calendar shows that on xmas eve this year there will be five days worth of prisoners released, many of whom will be homeless. The following week is not much better. Maybe people need to start raising the issue now rather than being confronted with it on the day.

I read recently that the national average for prisoners being released homeless is 16% and rising rapidly. That has to impact quite significantly on government plans when it comes to tagging and recalls.

Friday, 10 October 2025

A Traumatised Organisation

It was an interesting discussion, I clicked on it when Jim put it up in a previous blog. Gaie Delap used the term "moral injury" to describe the trauma of the injustice she experienced. This term occurs to me whenever I read the comments section in this blog, or when I reflect on why I am still raging at the damage to my profession after retirement, or when I speak with colleagues still in work. 

Just recently one of them, talking about the terrible morale in their office, said "even the new staff, they're hating it. They just dont feel they are helping anyone" It was sort of encouraging to hear that the new recruits, who have never known any different than HMPPS, are there because they want to HELP people, not batter crap into a laptop and breach and recall. I mean, there's the poor pay, and the vicious blame culture too, but right at the centre is the yawning chasm where a solid set of values and sense of justice should be.

Anyway, back to Moral Injury, which depending on where you look for a definition, is a form of PTSD,. Collectively and individually, Probation is a traumatised organisation, and it is playing out in front of us. It plays out in this blog; the rage and the grief, the fury aimed at any and everyone who might have prevented or softened the damage. It plays out in work, the bullying and intimidation meted out by an organisation that, at least at the top, is run by people who sold their souls and they know it. 

Run by "leaders" (now that is a trigger word for our shared condition to flare) who spout guff about "trauma informed practice" but can't or wont translate that into what they do to their staff, like it doesnt tanslate into the work we are told to do. So it plays out in long term sickness and people just voting with their feet and leaving at the first viable opportunity. 

Heaven forfend Probation staff are instructed to name and shame their clientele in public. Such a stark horrible reminder of just how dismal the whole thing is, and where its heading. Question is, can anything be done to turn this tanker around? If so, what?

--oo00oo--

Would the state wish to lose the control over the criminal justice system it has now secured following the sham of TR? Would it willingly return the Probation Service to its original position of self determination and independence? The Tories are now talking about placing sentencing guidelines into the hands of politicians - how long before Labour are saying that's a good idea? 

Lots of traditional ideas are being destroyed - customer service, social justice, rehabilitation etc - we're now a nation of consumers, or units, in a market driven economy, losing our sense of community, justice and fairness for their own sake. I expect the last thing to go will be the lie being sold to new probation recruits that they will be spending their time 'helping' people - a blatant miselling of the role because the unfolding truth is too soul destroying to contemplate - that they will be monitoring, controlling and enforcing all day to align with the plan to finish off probation and integrate with the new ethos of units, markets and profits.

--oo00oo--

My researching the notion of 'moral injury' led to much discussion of it in the context of military action, but it then brought me to this article published in the Probation Journal of June 2022:- 

Probation and the ethics of care

Abstract

Discussions of probation's values can be enriched by an appreciation of care ethics. This approach is explained with attention to its emphasis on relationships and individualisation. The implications for probation's work are explored, including its significance for the supervisory relationship, its challenges for the management of the organisation and the value of individualised approaches. Care ethics argues for practice shaped not by rules and processes, but by people and their circumstances in all their diversity. Care ethics offers a principled and effective approach to probation's work.

The values of probation

Probation workers have been aware of the moral significance of their work from the earliest days. In recent years, these aspects have often been explored in terms of probation values, considering the moral worth, the politics and the practical feasibility of finding ways of giving expression to probation's ethical commitments (Canton and Dominey, 2017: Chapter 3; Cowburn et al., 2013; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Nellis and Gelsthorpe, 2004; Williams, 1994).

Sometimes, in the contested political arena, it can seem as if these concerns have been pushed aside in the relentless pursuit of the enquiry to find out ‘what works’. Yet, as David Garland has insisted ‘… the pursuit of values such as justice, tolerance, decency, humanity and civility should be part of any penal institution's self-consciousness - an intrinsic and constitutive aspect of its role - rather than a diversion from its “real” goals or an inhibition on its capacity to be “effective”.’ (1990: 292)

For that matter, it has been argued that trying to establish probation practice on the foundation of what's right rather than what works may turn out not only to defend and enhance these values, but even to make it more likely that probation practice will achieve some of the objectives that it sets for itself (Canton, 2013).

Conclusion

The argument here is not that codes of ethics and practice guidance have no part to play in ensuring good quality probation practice, nor does it suggest that the probation service should pay no attention to the outcomes of its work. However, drawing on the principles of virtue ethics and care ethics, it does advocate an approach that takes seriously the relational element of practice, that considers the circumstances of each case, and that has an unapologetic focus on care.

Viewing probation practice through the lens of care ethics suggests that probation values emerge from principled people (at all levels in the organisations) trying to do the right thing in a caring way in difficult circumstances. Both care ethics and virtue ethics focus on the characteristics of the practitioner and, for care ethics, on the interaction between the practitioner and service user. Both approaches are sceptical that probation values could be understood simply as a set of prescriptions that simply need to be applied in each case and in each situation.

To put caring at the centre of probation practice does not produce easy answers to the ethical dilemmas faced by practitioners, which often involve not just the interests, rights and concerns of service users, but also those of past and potential victims of crime and of the wider community. Identifying the course of action that best communicates care and meets needs requires debate and reflection; different people may come to contrasting conclusions.

Care is as much about how work is undertaken as what is done or what outcome is achieved. For example, service users have been found to accept most probation interventions as legitimate. Even monitoring, which might be supposed to be a resented intrusion, can be perceived as an indication that you matter, that somebody cares about what you are doing, especially when it is acknowledged as a legitimate aspect of the role (Dominey, 2019). And a corollary of the acceptance of monitoring is that sometimes the service user will be found to have been in default and enforcement action taken.

There may be objections to the idea that caring is the ethical way to approach probation practice. Perhaps ‘offenders’ do not merit care; perhaps care has no place in punishment. The arguments from care ethics, and from this article, push in the opposite direction: care deserves consideration as a guiding virtue of probation. It is not the case that according more care to ‘offenders’ leaves less for ‘victims’; ethical practice is concerned about the needs of everyone in the community. Further, the victim/offender dichotomy is misleading; insights into the trauma and abuse that form part of the life stories of so many service users (Anderson, 2016) highlight the extent of the victim/offender overlap and demonstrate that probation practice should, drawing on Tronto’s (1993) framework, include caring about, caring for and care giving.

A signal advantage of a care ethics approach to the work of probation is its promise to align ethical practice, effective practice and the motivations that inspire so many probation staff. Although our main line of argument has insisted on the ethical merits of a care approach, we have also seen that it turns out to be effective in terms of the purposes that are often set for probation – in particular, compliance, reduced reoffending and even the management of risk. Any successes that probation might achieve in reducing reoffending and in public protection amply fulfil its responsibility to show care to everyone and not just those under its supervision.

Care ethics, like virtue ethics, insists on doing the right things for the right reasons. For all the political attempts to disavow caring, it remains the case that large numbers of people join the profession because of a commitment to help and care for vulnerable people (Cracknell, 2016; Deering, 2011; Mawby and Worrall, 2013). The principle of care engages these motives, aligning them with both effective and ethical practice, bringing a coherence and integrity to probation's work.

Jane Dominey
Rob Canton

Thursday, 9 October 2025

Clash of Cultures

I saw this cartoon from Private Eye online in August and I've been pondering how to use it. For me it epitomises how huge chunks of the Civil Service are perceived by the public - Home Office; DWP and MoJ. It's a corrupting influence on the Probation Service and we need to break free.  

And thanks go to the reader for spotting this story from Inside Time that adds to the growing mountain of evidence of a complete failure by HMPPS and MoJ to understand the probation ethos and frankly an unworkable clash of cultures between a uniformed service and us. 

Restorative Justice ‘thwarted by HMPPS’

Restorative Justice – where crime victims meet directly with offenders in an attempt to obtain closure – has been an important part of rehabilitation in prisons since the 1980s. It is supported by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Prisons Minister Lord Timpson.

Yet organisations which run Restorative Justice sessions across England and Wales claim that a unit set up within the Prison Service to extend and oversee the practice is in fact blocking it from happening.

Why Me?, a leading charity in the field, claims the unit – known as ‘reHub’ – is excessively risk averse, does not trust experts, insists cases are referred through its own process, takes decisions without consulting those involved, and fails to explain its thinking. Its lack of capacity to handle the volume of cases required is said to have prevented meetings from going ahead.

In an apparent acknowledgement of the problem, the Ministry of Justice has now ordered a review of reHub’s work “with the aim to identify areas for improvement”.

Restorative Justice involves perpetrators of crimes communicating directly with their victims, provided both parties agree, to discuss the incident involved. It is run locally, and may be funded by Police and Crime Commissioners or other charities. Victim Support recommends it. Agencies would work together to see if a meeting was appropriate, and if so, enable it either in prison or via probation. It has been found to lead to a 14 per cent reduction in reoffending, and 80 per cent of victims who took part say it helped bring closure.

In 2016, MPs on the Justice Select Committee found that Restorative Justice was operating inconsistently across the country, and made recommendations to strengthen the process. This led, in 2023, to HM Prison and Probation Service establishing the HMPPS Restorative Practice Hub (reHub). In February that year, the new unit published a strategy that was supposed to lay out guidance on the concept and responsibilities of those involved in the process.

However, charities believe that the unit has made matters worse. Why Me? says that since reHub became involved it has interfered in a system that worked smoothly and effectively, rather than looking at ways of expanding the scheme to other areas lacking in options.

Practitioners have spoken of their frustrations. Comments made to Inside Time include:
  • “Probation will not even talk to us now without going through reHub. In the past, we could communicate directly.”
  • “We no longer have access to initial conversations with prisoners to assess risk ourselves.”
  • “There is a lack of communication. Timescales are hard to cope with.”
  • “Panel meetings with reHub are dreadful. They talk down to us, though we have done this for years with great success.”
Victims are the most affected by this change, and they have found that decisions are taken without involving them, even to cancel a programme previously agreed. They also say the wait now for a case to be heard is distressing.

One man from London, a victim of assault, told us: “Due to reHub I pulled out of the scheme, even though it had been me who had requested the meeting. It was taking so long. I am so disappointed that I have not managed to get the closure I sought.”

A woman from north-east England, who we will call Lucy, had been robbed and injured by an attacker she wanted to meet to bring closure. Lucy said: “The delays they are causing are giving me stress. I took up the courage to ask to participate in Restorative Justice but the time they have taken to get it organised has made me even more stressed, so I have pulled out. I now feel worse than ever.”

“Why Me?” put these issues before the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson. Inside Time has now been told by the MoJ: “The HMPPS Restorative Practice Hub (reHub) is conducting a focused internal review of the work of the team with the aim of identifying areas for improvement and provide actionable recommendations. It will assess current processes, team structure, policy challenges, stakeholder engagement, and data capabilities.”

Inside Time understands that this will be a three-month process. “Why Me?” says it trusts this process will end with reHub making a positive, not negative, contribution in the future.

--oo00oo--

It will be recalled how HMPPS/MoJ pulled the plug on Circles of Support and Accountability over the years:-



And then more recently the failure to offer any support for the Nottingham-based Safer Living Foundation:-

The Safer Living Foundation (SLF) was a British charity established in 2014 to prevent and reduce sexual offending by supporting individuals convicted of sexual offenses and those at risk of offending. It was a multi-agency collaboration involving representatives from HMP Whatton, Nottingham Trent University, and the National Probation Service, focusing on research and rehabilitation through initiatives like the Safer Living Centre and Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA). It has since closed, with its closure announced in April 2025.