System That Still Works

This made me reflect on the journey we've been on and why it's all gone so wrong:-

Probation caseloads:
2002 191,400
2003 199,200
2004 209,500
2005 224,100
2006 235,000
2007 242,700
2008 243,400

And all that with nowhere near as many staff 'onboarded' & trained 'at pace', the earliest version of crams, no embedded oasys 'til 2004, PSRs, Lifers, coffee &/or fag breaks, team meetings, annual leave, travel & subsistence, prison visits, home visits AND continuous professional development. Tell that t' young 'uns of today an' they won't believe yer.

I asked AI what it was like being a Probation Officer in the past?

Being a probation officer was defined by a strong ethos of "advise, assist, and befriend," offering far more personal autonomy and face-to-face social work focus than today's heavily bureaucratized systems

Autonomy and Offices: Officers typically had their own private offices, personal filing cabinets, and dictaphones for transcribing case notes with the help of dedicated clerical staff.

The Ethos of Friendship & Support: Supervision leaned heavily into social work, building long-term personal bonds with clients. Officers often went above and beyond their formal remit—helping clients find jobs, managing local clothing stores, or using office befriending and emergency funds (often small cash allowances up to £10) for food or housing. 

Court and Fieldwork: Working the courts (Magistrates' and County Courts) was a central, hands-on duty. Fieldwork was heavily "patch-based," meaning officers regularly ran weekly reporting centers and drop-ins away from the main office, sometimes supported by local volunteers. 

Resources & Tools: Technology was just beginning to shift: electric typewriters, early photocopiers, and fax machines were just arriving, and records relied heavily on physical card indexes and micro-cassettes. 

Broader Culture: While the job offered high professional independence and a sense of community impact, institutional environments like prisons—where officers also spent time—could be gritty, rough, and subject to the social tensions of the era.

This led me to reflect on a key aspect of probation in the past - it was of course not a sentence. This then led me to this:- “Advise, assist and befriend”: Client Perspectives on Probation from the 1980s to Present-day, a paper about probation in the Irish Republic, which in turn drew my attention to this:-

The Criminal Justice (Community Sanctions) Bill 2014 is a piece of Irish legislation designed to update the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, broaden community-based sanctions, and reform alternative sentencing. But it has never been enacted, so the 1907 Act remains in force. So I wondered if that still meant probation was not a sentence in Ireland. Here's what AI says:-

In Ireland, a standard probation order is historically and philosophically structured as an alternative to a sentence, rather than a sentence itself. The primary reasons Ireland maintains this distinction are rooted in its foundational legislation, judicial philosophy, and the unique legal benefits of the non-conviction framework.

1. The Legal Framework: The 1907 Act
The primary legal basis for probation in Ireland remains the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Under Section 1 of this Act, when a court decides to use a probation order, it explicitly chooses to do so "in lieu of imposing a sentence of imprisonment"

The Mechanism: The court binds the offender over on a recognizance (a legal promise) to be of good behavior and to return to court for sentencing only if they fail to comply with the probation terms

The Logic: Because the individual is being given a chance to avoid punishment, the law views the probation period as a deferral of sentencing, not the execution of a sentence.

2. The Benefit of Avoided Convictions
In the Irish District Court, if a judge finds that the facts of a minor offense are proven but chooses to issue a probation order, they do not proceed to a formal conviction.

By keeping probation structured as a pre-sentencing alternative, Irish law allows individuals—particularly first-time or minor offenders—to avoid a permanent criminal record. This preserves their employment prospects, travel opportunities, and social reintegration. 

3. Clear Separation of Non-Custodial Sanctions
Irish criminal justice relies on a distinct hierarchy of non-custodial options:

Alternatives to Sentencing: Conditional dismissals and probation orders under the 1907 Act (which avoid a recorded conviction in the District Court).

Sentences Served in the Community: Community Service Orders (CSOs), fines, and suspended sentences.

Because Community Service Orders (introduced via the Criminal Justice Act 1983) and fully suspended sentences already serve as distinct, formal "community sentences", there has been less legislative pressure to redefine the traditional 1907 probation order.

So, AI confirms that, unlike other parts of the former United Kingdom, Eire chose to stick to a bloody system that works:-

The statutory foundation for probation and conditional discharge in Ireland remains largely based on the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, though it operates alongside modern criminal justice legislation.

Core Legislation: The 1907 Act is still in force and active in the Republic of Ireland (unlike in England, Wales, or Scotland, where it was repealed by later mid-century acts). It is maintained and updated in administrative consolidations by the Law Reform Commission.

How It Works: Under the Act, judges can dismiss a proven charge or place an offender on a probation or conditional discharge order based on factors like character, age, health, or the trivial nature of the offence. In the District Court, a dismissal under Section 1(1) of the Act means the charge is proven, yet no criminal conviction is recorded (though a record of the dismissal is kept).

Conditions: The individual must agree to be of good behaviour, avoid further crimes, and follow any specific directions (such as addiction treatment or training courses).

Consequences of a Breach: If the person breaks the conditions of the order within the set period, they can be brought back before the court and dealt with (which may lead to a conviction or sentence for the original offence).

How's Tagging Going?

Electronic monitoring in practice: The police response to electronically monitored bail conditions and the use of electronic monitoring on community sentences and post-release licences

Foreword
Electronic monitoring is playing an increasingly prominent role across the criminal justice system. Over recent years, technological advances, legislative reform and changing operational pressures have all contributed to a substantial expansion in its use. In the year to June 2026, the total number of individuals subject to electronic monitoring grew by over 2,300, to 27,847. Electronic monitoring is now expected to support a wide range of objectives, including public protection, victim safety, rehabilitation, and compliance. Against a backdrop of significant prison overcrowding, electronic monitoring is increasingly being relied upon as an alternative to custody. The introduction of the Sentencing Act 2026 is expected to accelerate this trend further, increasing both the number of people subject to monitoring and the demands placed on those responsible for delivering and responding to it.

This report brings together the findings from two strands of inspection fieldwork: the police response to breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions, and the use of electronic monitoring on community sentences and post-release licences. While they focus on different parts of the criminal justice system, both strands consider whether the governance, systems, processes and partnership arrangements supporting electronic monitoring are sufficiently mature and resilient to keep pace with its growing use.

Our inspection of the police response to breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions found dedicated officers and staff working hard to respond to a substantial and increasing demand. Yet national guidance was limited, and systems and processes in different fieldwork forces varied considerably. In the cases we examined, alleged breaches of electronically monitored bail conditions did not consistently lead to structured consideration of risk to victims, witnesses or the wider public. Poor record-keeping, information-gathering and analysis made it difficult for forces to understand either the demand generated by electronic monitoring or the effectiveness of their response.

For probation, electronic monitoring has expanded the range of tools available to support public protection and risk management. Regional electronic monitoring teams have improved oversight, strengthened governance and brought greater expertise to the management of increasingly complex monitoring arrangements. However, expansion has brought complexity. Across the Probation Service, practitioners are required to navigate a growing range of monitoring technologies, operating models and communication channels. While many recognise the potential value of electronic monitoring, it is not always fully integrated into supervision or rehabilitative work. We found examples of monitoring data being underused and practitioners receiving large volumes of information without always having the confidence or capacity to make best use of it. Many of the challenges identified in our 2022 inspection of electronic monitoring remain evident today.

A particular concern is that, despite significant investment in data systems and management information, achieving a reliable picture of electronic monitoring activity still requires substantial manual effort. On 30 June 2026, there were 5,043 individuals who should have been subject to electronic monitoring but were not being monitored.

Understanding who is subject to EM, who remains unassigned with the necessary equipment, and the reasons for this, often relies on the reconciliation of multiple datasets and validation exercises. As electronic monitoring continues to expand, the need for a single, trusted and accessible source of information becomes increasingly important for management of the caseload and public confidence.

Most concerningly, both inspection strands identified risks arising from fragmented information-sharing arrangements. Whether between probation and the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS), police and courts, or across different information systems, the absence of clear, timely and reliable information frequently undermined confidence in monitoring arrangements.

Our probation inspection findings also raise important questions about fairness and equality. While national policy recognises that electronic monitoring should be applied equitably, we are yet to see mature arrangements for understanding disproportionality across protected characteristics. As the use of electronic monitoring grows, it will become increasingly important for criminal justice agencies to understand not only who is being monitored, but whether its use and outcomes differ for particular groups.

At its best, electronic monitoring offers opportunities to strengthen public protection, improve victim safety and support more effective supervision and monitoring in the community. These tools have the potential to be guard-rails, steering people away from the wrong choices. However, technology alone cannot deliver these outcomes. Success depends on the quality of the supporting systems, partnerships, governance and professional practice that sit around it.

As electronic monitoring assumes a more prominent role within the criminal justice system, the focus must shift from expanding its use to ensuring it is delivered consistently, effectively and in ways that achieve the intended benefits for victims, communities and those subject to monitoring. This report identifies examples of encouraging practice, but the 30 recommendations it makes also draw attention to the scale of progress required across the system. It highlights areas where much more improvement is required if electronic monitoring is to become the credible, effective and integrated tool that policymakers, practitioners and the public expect it to be.

Martin Jones CBE
HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Michelle Skeer OBE QPM
His Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services

Probation service leadership, policy and strategy
Since the 2022 HM Inspectorate of Probation thematic inspection, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has invested significantly in the governance and oversight of EM within the Probation Service. Regional EM teams are now established in all probation regions and provide better scrutiny of cases that have not been assigned relevant EM equipment, improved oversight of violations and more support for practitioners in navigating an increasingly complex EM landscape. National leadership has also strengthened through the introduction of a new operating framework and management information products. Together, these developments have improved oversight of installation performance, enforcement activity and individuals who are not being electronically monitored as planned, with senior leaders demonstrating a stronger understanding of operational performance than was evident in our previous inspection. The availability of management information has improved considerably. However, as with policing, a recurring concern was the absence of a single, trusted source of information.

Significant manual effort remains necessary to reconcile multiple datasets and establish key operational facts, including who is currently being monitored, who is not being monitored, and why monitoring has not yet started.

The policy framework underpinning EM is comprehensive. The Electronic Monitoring Operational Framework establishes clear principles about proportionality, purpose, credibility, integration and fairness. However, many frontline practitioners were unfamiliar with some of these principles and there was little evidence that they routinely informed day-to-day decision-making.

Arrangements for understanding outcomes were less developed than those for understanding activity. In the Probation Service, leaders could generally describe performance on installations, violations, enforcement activity, monitoring volumes and breach notifications but were less able to demonstrate whether EM was contributing to reductions in reoffending, improved public protection outcomes, enhanced victim safety or better rehabilitation. We also found limited ability to understand disproportionality. While some analysis had been undertaken for specific programmes, comprehensive assurance regarding the use or impact of EM across the full range of protected characteristics was lacking.

Pre-sentence and pre-release work
Information-sharing arrangements to support decisions about EM have improved since our previous inspection. Practitioners now routinely seek police information before recommending electronically monitored curfews, which helps them to identify domestic abuse and other safeguarding concerns that may affect the suitability of a proposed address. However, the quality and completeness of information provided by police forces varied considerably. In some cases, limited information, restricted timescales for disclosure or the absence of key details reduced practitioners’ ability to make fully informed decisions and, at times, created a false sense of assurance about the suitability of curfew arrangements.

The quality of pre-sentence advice to courts was mixed. Practitioners were generally able to identify a clear purpose for EM and recommendations were usually proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. However, reports did not consistently demonstrate how EM would contribute to rehabilitation, reduce offending or work alongside other proposed requirements. Assessment of an individual’s personal circumstances, diversity needs and capacity to comply with monitoring arrangements was often insufficient. Courts imposed the recommended EM requirement in most cases, although we found examples where EM was imposed despite practitioners identifying outstanding safeguarding concerns or assessing it as unsuitable.

Sentencers were particularly positive about alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements, describing them as a credible intervention that provided objective evidence of compliance. Beyond alcohol monitoring, however, stakeholders reported that courts continue to associate EM primarily with curfews and are often less familiar with the wider range of technologies available. While practitioners and sentencers recognised the potential value of GPS monitoring and exclusion zones, confidence in their use was variable, particularly in relation to eligibility criteria, operational requirements and practical application.

Pre-release planning was inconsistent and often gave insufficient attention to the role EM was intended to play in managing risk, protecting victims and supporting rehabilitation. While practitioners had generally considered information on safeguarding and domestic abuse, there was less evidence that they had analysed the suitability, impact and purpose of EM, or explained monitoring requirements effectively to individuals before release. Information-sharing between prisons, probation and monitoring providers was inconsistent, contributing to delays, confusion and difficulties with implementation.

The strongest practice involved early planning, effective multi-agency communication and clear discussions with individuals about the purpose and expectations of EM. However, these examples were not widespread. Too often, planning focused on the practical arrangements for imposing EM rather than how monitoring would contribute to wider sentence objectives, public protection and successful resettlement. As a result, the potential for EM to make a meaningful contribution to rehabilitation, desistance and risk management was not consistently realised.

Electronic monitoring in probation service delivery
The quality of probation practice in relation to EM was mixed and showed limited improvement since our 2022 inspection. Practitioners generally identified relevant risks, needs and personal circumstances, but too often failed to analyse how EM would contribute to reducing reoffending, managing risk, protecting victims or supporting desistance. EM was frequently treated as a stand-alone requirement rather than an integrated part of sentence management, with insufficient consideration given to motivation, ability, readiness to comply, diversity needs and personal circumstances.

Weaknesses identified in initial assessments were often carried through into planning and delivery. Too often, plans did not consistently explain how EM would support rehabilitation, public protection or wider sentence objectives. Contingency planning was particularly weak, and opportunities to involve individuals, family members and partner agencies in supporting successful compliance were frequently missed.

The delivery of EM was also hindered by operational challenges. Delays in fitting monitoring equipment remained common, communication with providers was inconsistent, and practitioners frequently reported difficulties accessing, interpreting and using monitoring information. GPS trail monitoring and exclusion zones were widely regarded as valuable public protection tools, yet both were underused. Often, practitioners were more focused on getting tags fitted than using the information they provided.

Information-sharing and multi-agency working during sentence delivery were inconsistent. Opportunities to use EM to support safeguarding, victim protection and risk management were often missed, while management oversight was effective in fewer than one-third of the inspected cases. The sharing of information about electronic monitoring requirements with victims was inconsistent, limiting assurance that victims were being kept appropriately informed. Regions had introduced specialist EM teams, and some were piloting auto-enforcement models that improved oversight and timeliness. However, these approaches raised questions about practitioners’ ownership of EM and the extent to which EM was integrated within wider case management activity.

Reviewing activity was a significant weakness. Formal review of the effectiveness and impact of EM was often absent, with limited consideration of whether monitoring had achieved its intended purpose, contributed to behavioural change or remained necessary and proportionate. Preparation for the end of monitoring was particularly poor, which reduced the opportunities to sustain progress or adapt risk management arrangements once EM had ended.

Overall, we found that EM was too often delivered as an administrative requirement focused on compliance rather than as an active intervention capable of supporting rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and strengthening public protection.

Housing in Prison via Recall

So am I reading this correctly?

"Through the National Plan to End Homelessness, the Government has given a commitment to halving the proportion of prison leavers released homeless...

we simply cannot commit to end homelessness for prison leavers...the problem is simply too hard to deal with...so under our commitment to end homelessness by the end of this parliament we need to be very clear: we will not be ending homelessness for people on probation, just halving the current problem...probation officers have the skills and abilities to manage vulnerable and difficult people who are likely to reoffend due to destitution...these people can just be recalled and housed in prison instead, even though we've also committed to reducing prison numbers by releasing them homeless only for them to fill up the prison spaces again within a matter of weeks"

I mocked the government's "commitment to end homelessness" because when it comes to people released from prison that commitment apparently doesn't involve "ending homelesness" at all, but halving the current numbers of people released homeless. I said in that post this leaves Probation to manage extremely vulnerable people in destitute situations where "housing in prison via recall" ultimately becomes sadly the better option.

Ok lets be clear here. This from AI:-

The text is a satirical or critical paraphrase of UK government policy rather than a direct, verbatim quote from a specific named official.

Context of the Claims

Official Policy Stance: Under the National Plan to End Homelessness, the UK Labour government (led by the Prime Minister and ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ministry of Justice) has committed to halving the proportion of prison leavers released into homelessness (to 'no fixed abode') by the end of the Parliament (around 2029). 

The Controversy: Critics, social justice charities (such as Nacro), and opposition MPs have pointed out that thousands of prisoners are still being released without accommodation, leading to recent media reports and parliamentary clashes over issues like early release schemes, housing shortages, and even reports of probation services or local offices resorting to extreme stopgaps like issuing tents. 

The Quote's Origin: The passage you provided exaggerates or caricatures the government's official target—which is explicitly framed as halving prison leaver homelessness rather than eradicating it entirely—and turns it into a cynical internal monologue representing what critics claim the policy amounts to in practice (i.e., failing to house people, relying on recall to prison, and cycling individuals back through the justice system).

Lord Farmer (Con) nailed it in July this year:-

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of partnership working between prisons and local housing authorities in preventing homelessness and rough sleeping among prisoners released early.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are here today to debate an issue that could get lost amidst the penal populism informing much of the response to the next waves of early release following the Sentencing Act 2026.

Why do I refer to penal populism? Crime must be punished, and I completely understand the concerns of many victims about early release. However, the public vengefulness politicians court to achieve popularity, notably by demanding ever-longer custodial sentences, has led to ever-longer sentences, clogged up our prisons and contributed to the need for these great swathes of early release. The inflation in custodial sentence length between 2010 and 2025 was 45%.

In their book, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, criminologists King and Willmott reveal just how many ex-Justice Secretaries, from both main parties, regret “playing to the gallery” as

“tough law and order figures”,

as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was Home Secretary following the 1992 general election, described his successors. This response was driven by the understandable outcry following the Jamie Bulger killing in early 1993 by two other children. Instead of acknowledging the need to challenge inadequate parenting and manage expectations about what a criminal justice system can do, the Home Secretary who followed my noble friend Lord Clarke kickstarted the still ongoing competition between the two main parties as to who could be toughest on crime.

My response to the arms race that penal populism generates and has filled our prisons with is that, like the nuclear arms race, we simply cannot afford the price tag, either in sheer cash terms of £60,000 to £65,000 per prisoner per annum, or the squandering of human potential. Those sentenced for sexual offences—over one-fifth of prisoners—are treated as unreservedly heinous despite considerable variability in seriousness and the hypersexualisation of society. We want to lock them up and throw away the key, but the vast majority will leave prison. They and we need their genuine rehabilitation. Many have lost their families, livelihoods and homes. Only about one-third move into settled accommodation post release, compared to the average of around 45%.

More generally, imprisonment itself renders offenders homeless when tenancies lapse, mortgages are not paid or family circumstances mean they cannot return home. Despite a continuing duty of care, far too many are released homeless. Also, rehabilitation without a proper roof is almost impossible, and the statistics bear this out: their proven reoffending rate of 76% is more than double the 36.4% of those who reoffend after being released into settled accommodation. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed how many of those released early are likely to return to prison, whether through recalls for breaching licence conditions or reoffending?

This is a far grislier question, but have they assessed how many are likely to die? Leaving prison homeless is a major risk factor for death shortly after release. Last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025—a 28% rise since 2021. Similarly, the charity Nacro found that more than one person dies every day in the year after leaving prison, and last year one in every 144 people released died within that period, more than three times the rate in 2015. In 40% of cases, drugs are a factor and homelessness interacts fatally with that: there is no structure, support or healthcare.

Inside Time, the prisoners’ newspaper—which I know the Minister reads, as do I—says that:

“An estimated 6,000 prisoners will be released earlier than planned from English and Welsh jails in 10 monthly tranches, starting on 2 September”. 

So it is very concerning that HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been

“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.

Although the Government have responded to Written Questions by saying that local authorities collaborate effectively with the Prison Service to reduce homelessness, Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Similarly, the Government’s A National Plan to End Homelessness states that this

“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”.

The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was designed to facilitate this, and almost half of all “duty to refer” referrals are from criminal justice system organisations. Almost 10 years on from that Act, I welcome the implicit recognition in the proposed new duty to collaborate that it is not working as it should for ex-prisoners. Will the Minister explain how the new duty to collaborate will achieve the level of change required and whether it will be introduced in time to meet September’s heightened need for housing? What incentives, or even sanctions where necessary, will be put in place to ensure better joint working, not least in the interests of rehabilitation?

Prison capacity has been such an emergency issue, but the time has surely come for this to come into much sharper focus as a slower-burn way of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs us all £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any previous and future rehabilitation activity. Without accommodation, they cannot seek work and restructure their lives.

Collaboration with local housing authorities is essential for rehabilitation. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners, even in areas of very pressured housing markets. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports that many London boroughs compare badly with statistical neighbours where housing is concerned. In 2025, the London Assembly housing committee flagged inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams; prisons not consistently complying with the duty to refer; and late referrals from prisons contributing greatly to uncertainty.

I return to the plan to end homelessness. This Government have committed, by the end of this Parliament, to a 50% reduction in homelessness among people on their first night out of prison and an increase in the number of prison leavers in settled accommodation three months post release and thereafter. To conclude, I ask the Minister to outline how prisons and probation will deliver their responsibilities under the plan to embed local partnerships, collocation and pre-release planning.

--oo00oo--

It will be recalled that not long after this debate the cobbler resigned shortly before the new Prime Minister declared in Downing Street that his mission was to "end rough sleeping". As the Guardian reports, the sum committed is now some £900million, but prison releases are proving that for many it's actually "housing in prison via recall".  

Revisit

Just recently this forum has moved at a cracking pace and on a number of fronts, but in the process I think much tends not to register, so on occasion I think it's useful to revisit:-

Original comment listed in the article raises a number of very valid points, especially around inexperienced practitioners becoming SPOs. Seeing this happen with astonishing frequency, meaning that when practitioner's go to discuss case issues they aren't able to answer or have an idea who they could contact to clarify. We are compounding a dangerous situation, with the inexperienced leading the inexperienced.

****
Corporate bullying has become much more subtle in recent years with them adapting a lawfare type approach……present a problem and you are the only one, with it…or so you are told…..ask an inexperienced SPO to make a 50/50 decision and most will have to ask their manager or ask you to ask them….we live under constant threat of capability proceedings or if we work to our hours, we are somehow letting the side down, probation is fuelled by goodwill, remove that and who knows what would happen……..

****
"Local delivery is important, but structures alone won’t restore the profession. That requires leadership which values experience, encourages constructive challenge, understands frontline realities and recognises that professional expertise is not confined to those occupying management positions."

And therein lies one of the biggest hurdles - getting those with authority & influence to accept that centralising, privatising & re-unifying probation services was a total fuck up. This requires 'the centre' to openly admit that their raison d'etre was - and is - not just flawed, but built on years of lies, fabricated evidence & abusive practice.

It all followed on from the initial decisions to centralise in 1999 (new choreography), impose central control (noms), embed privatisation in law (OMA2007) and the subsequent ideological lunacy of 2013/4 whereby noms/hmpps intentionally targetted existing experienced staff & threw hundreds overboard. Why? It was essentially an attempt to remove &/or manage the discontented, the nay-sayers & those who voiced concerns: "take the money or we'll manage you out with nothing."

Using public funds (£80+million provided by the Cabinet Office) they facilitated a mass redundancy scheme (money the CRC owners misappropriated in most cases)... a scheme the unions signed off on, then in a fit of delayed guilt felt they ought to go for judicial review, realised they were hoist by their own petard, & hastily withdrew:

"• In February 2015, NAPO (the trade union and professional association for family court and probation staff) instituted a judicial review challenging the legality of the government's Transforming Rehabilitation contracts for the 21 community rehabilitation companies (CRCs).
• NAPO subsequently withdrew the judicial review and was ordered to pay the substantive costs of the legal proceedings."

****
The dialogue and subsequent comments says it all. Probation has become a poisonous, ‘them and us’ organisation. It will never recover what it previously delivered. The OFPS guarantees that PO’s will be sat delivering the Janet and John supervision model forever, using proscribed supervision sessions developed by people with no probation experience. I have the privilege to be able to evidence different roles completed such as community, resettlement, custody, IOM and a specialist role. A lot of those up the greasy pole do not have that experience and look at people like me as a challenge and threat. I am no threat I don’t want to progress I have enjoyed my probation experience. I have experience of managing at another organisation took a redundancy package that meant I was comfortable and able to take the pay drop to become a PO. I have previously had experienced SPOs and Senior Managers. 

But things change and we work in a change environment. Unfortunately though it has not changed for the best, TR messed it completely and now we have SPOs and Senior Managers with no V or HROSH case management and hate it when their decisions evidence that limited knowledge, especially in the MAPPA arena, not understanding parole processes or registration for specific offences. It is embarrassing at times when you see a COM or POM advising them of their errors. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in probation, the highs the lows and the occasional conversation at the shops with people that I previously supervised both in the community and custody on community orders and licence. I don’t know if the new generation will have that experience or even make it passed ten years.

****
Re Probation has become poisonous. I posted this earlier on the post Our Future is Local.“The comments posted above just shows that HMPPS continues to operate with impunity. Two years after the Rademaker Review was completed we still have no change. Nor will there ever be.”.

In 20 something starting in PS, the working environment and the incompetence of managers was something of a culture shock. Got worse when I moved across to Sentence Management. Toxic, toxic, toxic. SPOs could talk the talk, but didn’t walk the talk. When challenging a SPO on how I was to achieve all the mandates of the National Standards with my caseload and not been given the required time to complete certain training without a caseload, the SPO actually said to me that National Standards was Probation myth and legend and didn’t exist. This was a SPO who spent his most of his day scouring the internet for news, properties on the market, sourcing companies to do renovations for his house, finding ammunition for his personal vendetta against former CRC SPO and the list goes on. This happened each and every day he was in office until his appearances in office eventually became an occasion to celebrate. I took great delight in getting an electronic copy of the National Standards and sending it to him saying here we go, not a Probation myth or legend. A lot of blustering later but no apology.

I do acknowledge that a lot of the PDU culture is down to the leadership (or lack thereof) at PDU level. The ‘Queen Bee Syndrome’ can be very prevalent in some PDUs. Yet other PDUs have wonderful and inspired leaders. These are the exception. Is a shame as the bad grapes should never have been promoted to ACOs. God only knows how they do the selection criteria.

I still cannot understand to this day as to how they (SPOs) knowingly are complicit in overworking and whipping staff (idiomatic metaphor) to achieve the performance metrics. They know it is impossible within current staff shortfalls of at least 25%, unmanageable caseloads for a 37 hour week forcing uncompensated overtime for those officers whose motivation is intrinsic. This, stagnant pay, as well as withholding of CBF and extensive delays of annual pay awards are systematic exploitation. It amounts to constructive wage theft and moral injury. The system is only functioning by extracting unsustainable amounts of emotional and physical Labour from its ever dwindling remaining workforce. There is no gratitude. Only bullying, coercion and control.

****
Let’s bust the myth, there is no leadership in the PS, nothing that would be recognised by those who have leadership and management qualifications of which I am one. They even have leadership courses but again no really recognised qualifications. One of my former colleagues said that they promote the incompetent as a result the organisation fails, you can read as many policies as you want if you cannot interpret them positively then as a manager you have failed, do as I say is not management, because I am telling you to is not management, I was told you had to do it this way is not management. Leaving your team members to face an SFO because of your incompetence is not management. So no leadership and no management equals probation currently and all the experienced POs leaving.

Moaning or Highlighting?

The research Jim has highlighted about ‘complicated loyalty’ is particularly interesting, because I suspect it explains why so many experienced PPs remain in a service they have become profoundly disillusioned with. Their loyalty isn’t necessarily to HMPPS. It’s to probation, to the people they supervise and to the belief that skilled, meaningful intervention can make a difference. But there’s a limit to how long an organisation can continue relying on that commitment while simultaneously undermining the conditions needed to sustain it.

And I think we’re overlooking another consequence of losing experienced PPs: who is going to develop the professional judgement of the next generation? There’s a great deal of emphasis on modernisation and technological efficiency, but I wonder whether we’ve properly considered what might be lost in the process. Take Justice Transcribe. Newer practitioner's may never experience having to listen, reflect, identify what matters and construct their own analytical account of a supervision session in their write ups.

Writing a case record isn’t simply an admin task. Done properly, it’s part of the thinking process. You consider what was said, what wasn’t said, how someone presented, what might be significant, whether your assessment has changed and what needs to happen next. The very act of deciding what to record, how to interpret it and why it matters helps develop professional judgement.

Of course, AI can assist with recording, and nobody wants practitioner's spending unnecessary hours typing. But there’s a difference between using technology to support professional thinking and allowing technology to increasingly perform the initial interpretation for us. If newer practitioner's become accustomed to reviewing polished, preconstructed narratives rather than developing their own accounts, how do we ensure they acquire the analytical skills needed to recognise what the technology has missed, misunderstood or overstated?

And who will help them develop those skills if experienced practitioners continue leaving, or are themselves so overwhelmed that meaningful mentoring and reflective supervision become luxuries? This is why the discussion about experience and professional mastery matters so much. Professional judgement isn’t acquired simply by completing a qualification, following a supervision package or progressing through management grades. It develops through experience, reflection, constructive challenge, learning from mistakes and working alongside people who know how to think critically about complex situations.

We seem very focused on developing systems that make probation more efficient, but rather less concerned about developing and retaining the people whose expertise makes probation effective.

The danger isn’t simply that we lose experienced practitioners, it's that we gradually lose the means by which professional expertise is passed on. And perhaps that’s the greatest irony of all. In our determination to make probation more efficient, we risk removing some of the very experiences through which practitioners learn to become effective professionals. You can't automate professional judgement and then wonder why the profession is losing its depth.

*****
Reading through these comments, I find something deeply troubling beyond the accounts of poor management, bullying and the loss of experienced staff. It’s the extent to which probation appears to have become divided against itself. POs against SPOs, experienced staff against newer colleagues, those who have progressed into management against those who have chosen to remain on the frontline. And somewhere in the middle, an increasing sense of resentment, mistrust and disillusionment.

How did a profession supposedly built upon empathy, reflection, understanding human behaviour and facilitating change become an environment in which some of those qualities appear so conspicuously absent in the way we treat one another?

The response telling a clearly distressed colleague to stop complaining, upskill or leave is particularly revealing. We spend our working lives recognising that people’s circumstances are individual and complex, that behaviour has context and that meaningful change requires support rather than judgement. Yet when a colleague expresses distress, the response from another member of the profession is effectively to dismiss them. Surely we should be capable of better than that?

I don’t believe all managers are incompetent or that every experienced PO is automatically an excellent professional. Nor do I believe newer colleagues lack the capacity to become outstanding POs or effective leaders. Those generalisations merely deepen the divisions. But I do believe an organisation has a serious problem when constructive challenge is perceived as disloyalty, experience is mistaken for resistance to change and staff begin to fear the consequences of questioning decisions.

A healthy professional culture should encourage respectful disagreement, critical thinking and learning from mistakes. It should be possible to challenge a manager without being labelled difficult, just as it should be possible for managers to make decisions without every disagreement becoming a personal confrontation. And leadership has a responsibility to create those conditions, not simply demand compliance and call it professionalism.

What concerns me is the apparent normalisation of hostility and distrust. We talk endlessly about improving performance, increasing productivity and retaining staff, yet how much attention is given to the damage caused when people no longer feel respected, listened to or psychologically safe at work? How much experience is lost because people become exhausted by the culture rather than the work itself? And what sort of professional environment are we introducing newly qualified POs into if division, cynicism and fear have become accepted features of working life?

The research on ‘complicated loyalty’ makes this particularly poignant. People can remain deeply committed to the purpose of probation while feeling increasingly alienated from the organisation employing them. That should concern every level of leadership. Because the real tragedy isn’t simply that experienced staff are leaving or that others feel trapped. It’s that people who entered a profession to help others are describing a workplace in which they increasingly feel unsupported themselves.

We cannot credibly promote rehabilitation, respect, constructive challenge and positive change as the foundations of our work while failing to demonstrate those same principles within our own organisation. And no amount of restructuring, professional registration or transformation will repair a culture that has forgotten how to value its own people.

*****
I'm a realist. Moaning on a forum changes what? I don't like the changes, I don't agree with turning a skilled trade into civil service nonsense. But it's happened, it's becoming more watered down and less skill required. You are replaceable by another PQIP off the conveyor belt. Do I agree? No, but it's a reality. So upskill, move sideways or if lucky enough, retire.

*****
I think the comment actually illustrates part of the problem. There’s a difference between recognising the reality of what probation has become and accepting that nothing can or should be done about it. Of course people can upskill, move sideways, seek promotion or leave. But why should those be the only realistic options for someone who wants to remain a skilled, experienced PO doing the work they originally entered the profession to do?

And describing newly qualified POs as coming off a conveyor belt risks directing our frustration towards the wrong people. They haven’t created the system they’re entering. Many will arrive with enthusiasm, commitment and a genuine desire to make a difference. The question is whether we’re providing the professional development, experience and support that will enable them to become the skilled POs we’re so concerned about losing.

The comment about TR is particularly relevant. We saw how organisational decisions could divide colleagues who previously shared a professional identity. Surely we should have learned something from that, rather than continuing to reinforce divisions between experienced and inexperienced staff, frontline and management, or those who stay and those who leave.

And I don’t accept that raising concerns is simply moaning. Critical reflection, constructive challenge and questioning established practice are supposed to be fundamental to probation. We encourage the people we supervise to examine their circumstances, challenge unhelpful patterns and recognise that change is possible. Yet when colleagues question the conditions in which they’re expected to work, some are told to accept reality or move on.

There is something deeply contradictory about that. Nobody is suggesting that a blog discussion alone will transform HMPPS. But dismissing professional concerns because they won’t immediately change the organisation merely reinforces the silence and resignation that allow problems to persist.

Perhaps what should concern us most isn’t that experienced POs are becoming disillusioned. It’s that we’ve reached a point where accepting the erosion of professional standards is being presented as realism, while questioning it is dismissed as complaining. Surely a profession worth preserving deserves better than that.

A Cry For Help

"By the way the Probation blog is now officially blocked on the HMPPS system."
I'm only guessing, but maybe the reason might be connected to this sort of thing:-

11:44 It's a joke when you have people with only 2 or 3 years experience on the frontline as PO's being able to apply to become SPO's, then only a short 2 or 3 years later jumping into Ace roles then they are Head of this or Head of that. These people are nothing more than careerists only thinking about lining their own pockets! It's insane that you have to ask them to sign assessments and reports off because it is only ever a back covering exercise for them because they don't have the experience or knowledge to make any kind of informed decisions on cases.

Then they judge anyone still on the Frontline for more than 5 years as a loser and let you know if you dare challenge them that they are one big club and you in your lowly PO role are definitely not in it! Grievances are a joke and will always side with management and it doesn't matter how many years experience you have there are SPO's who will infantilise you and treat you like a pquip who doesn't know s**t from mud when you're in your fifties! A surgeon can have a reputation and carry it around with him/her for decades wherever they go but if you are an excellent PO for decades, doing overtime, hitting all targets, doing amazing intervention work but then change office your reputation doesn't follow you in Probation.

If your health changes, your circumstances change and you have kids now or just can't work like you did in your twenties you are deemed rubbish and treated like rubbish and the service will try and mange you out! No one knows or gives a s**t about all the years you broke your back for the service. That's why I think all these people doing overtime and going the extra mile are idiots. If you want to do it to help a service user then do it but don't do it for the service because they really don't give a crap and none of it means anything to them! Your brilliant reputation can be shot to s**t at the drop of a hat or the change of a location/office!

*****
16:42 The response of a bitter jaded PO who has been knocked back for promotion. Try upskilling, move job role if it's that bad. It's not a good look being bitter and blaming others for your shortfalls.

*****
16:42 you are part of the problem and not the solution. You clearly don’t have any empathy or even listening skills. That was actually a cry for help from a colleague who feels very trapped due to their age and no viable alternatives for alternative employment options due to their age. They have given their all as they passionately believed they could and did make a difference to their service users. I have no doubt they are being pushed out due to them challenging what is happening to what was once a noble profession. Your tenure might seem secure at the moment, and you have a dismissive and callous attitude, but believe me, no matter how well you do your role and have brilliant success stories and have helped your service users turn around their lives and follow a crime free life (which is after all our objective), one day you will become enlightened and challenge the status quo. You will find yourself marginalised and on the outside and seen as a trouble maker and will start questioning your mere existence within your career.

*****
16:42 clearly has a lot to learn. With years of experience will inevitable come failing health and the change of attitudes of others is remarkable. Not at all a caring organisation, easily and quickly replaced.

*****
11:44 is closer to the new truth than many care to admit, the loss of experience has been replaced not by critical thinkers or those who challenge but by those promoted because they needed to get out of the front line and it is amazing how many SPOs suddenly become experts in their field………there are many hard working men and women who stay as POs as that is how you hone your skills, usually to a very high level………11:44 probably remembers when probation was a hive of critical thinking, innovation and you were able to challenge those further up the ladder………now they are so unsure in their roles they wouldn’t let you say boo to a goose before threatening you with disciplinary…………so to 11:44, continue to be that turbulent priest that they fear so much………..

*****
11:44 I don’t even think you need to change office to be treated like that! The first commenter is correct though, there’s many other jobs out there that will value, respect and pay you better! [above] is correct too, and this has been the direction for some years.

*****
Plenty of empathy here. I'm realistic, it's a poisonous job, but I don't sit around complaining or moan about managers. I'll do another couple of years and move on. The system is messed up, stop with the pathetic, my manager is mean to me. It's a job, don't like it? Go elsewhere, it is that simple.

*****
00:35 Hmmm, rather than run away & let the bullies remain active, wouldn't it be more satisfactory if:

* the unions were strong enough to properly & robustly support their members
* employers were decent enough not to encourage/tolerate bullying &/or other abusive practices, and
* that the bullies get dealt with such that the focus of the employee becomes doing 'the job'.

How much more productive might that be, HMPPS?

* Far fewer lost days to sickness/stress
* Hours & hours of staff time saved because there are far fewer tribunals, complaints or investigations
* A considerably happier & positive workplace
* A far more productive workforce

*****
I agree with much of what 11:44 has said, and I find the response at 16:42 rather telling. Suggesting that someone who expresses disillusionment should simply upskill, seek promotion or leave rather misses the point. Why should remaining on the frontline, developing expertise and becoming an exceptionally skilled PO be regarded as a failure to progress?

Not everyone aspires to management. Nor should they have to. There is enormous professional value in someone who has spent years developing the judgement, confidence and experience needed to undertake complex probation work well. Yet we seem to operate within a culture where progression is too often synonymous with moving upwards and away from the very work the organisation exists to deliver.

Experience isn’t simply a matter of years served, and there are undoubtedly excellent managers who have progressed relatively quickly. But equally, appointment to a more senior position doesn’t automatically confer the depth of knowledge, judgement or credibility that comes through sustained practice. Professional leadership should recognise and draw upon that experience, not feel threatened by it.

What particularly resonates with me is the apparent fragility of professional reputation. How can someone spend years demonstrating commitment, competence and sound judgement, yet find that their credibility is seemingly reset by a change of management, office or personal circumstances?

And why should a PP’s value be measured by their willingness or ability to work beyond their contracted hours? People get older, acquire caring responsibilities, experience ill health or simply reach a point where they can no longer sacrifice their personal lives to compensate for organisational demands. None of that diminishes their professional expertise.

The response suggesting people should just leave if they’re unhappy is equally troubling. Of course, individuals can choose to move on. But if the answer to experienced staff expressing legitimate concerns is simply to encourage their departure, how does that help a service already struggling with retention and the loss of institutional knowledge?

The reference at 00:35 to workplace culture is important too. A healthy professional organisation should be able to accommodate challenge, disagreement and critical thinking without automatically interpreting them as negativity or disloyalty. And this brings us rather neatly back to Martin Jones and the future of probation being local.

Local delivery is important, but structures alone won’t restore the profession. That requires leadership which values experience, encourages constructive challenge, understands frontline realities and recognises that professional expertise is not confined to those occupying management positions.

We talk a great deal about retaining staff, developing capability and improving public protection. Yet how much attention do we give to retaining the knowledge, judgement and experience of those who have chosen to remain closest to the work? Perhaps one of probation’s greatest problems is that we’ve become much better at recognising career progression than professional mastery. And those are not the same thing.

But What's the Job?

23431 - Project Manager - The Project Delivery Function aim is to have capable and empowered teams, delivering Project Delivery excellence... The MoJ’s Functional Operating Model is unique across government. All project delivery professionals are line managed through the Function and then assigned to projects and programmes across the MoJ and its Agencies. Successful candidates will be part of a flexible resource pool and may be placed in roles based on business needs. The Project Manager leads and manages the project and project team. They are responsible for driving and overseeing the delivery of the project to ensure objectives are clearly defined and achieved within agreed time, cost, and quality constraints. The national salary range is £42,914- £46,182, London salary range is £49,325- £53,081.

But what's the fucking job?

23392 - Change Delivery Officer - Midlands Team - The Change Officer role is an integral role within both Area and National Change Delivery teams which work across Prison and Probation. This role is pivotal in overseeing, and in the delivery of, both local and nationally identified change initiatives. With approximately 175 staff across 3 functions, our Change Group represents half of the Change Directorate.
£37,238 - £44,520

But what's the fucking job??

23239 - Change Systems Project Officer - The Project Officer role specialises in change systems and is instrumental in facilitating the smooth implementation of HMPPS Gateway Management System and HMPPS EQuiP Process Management system and processes within HMPPS. Facilitate comprehensive process mapping workshops to visualise current workflows and identify opportunities for process optimization.
£28,064 - £33,549

Uhh?

22878 - Senior Project Manager - The Project Delivery Function aim is to have capable and empowered teams, delivering Project Delivery excellence. ​Our people will be empowered to develop the skills they need to succeed, and our line managers will be accountable for upholding functional standards and demonstrating excellence in project delivery. Successful candidates will be part of a flexible resource pool and may be placed in roles based on business needs. The Senior Project Manager leads and manages the project and project team. The national salary range is £71,381 - £80,419, London salary range is £75,674 - £85,257

But what's the fucking job???

23405 - Senior Programme Manager - This is an important leadership role within the Service Centre expansion project, providing an exciting opportunity to shape and deliver a significant programme of change across probation services. Working under the governance of the Our Future Probation Service Programme, the postholder will oversee the full range of governance arrangements for the project, including reporting on progress, managing risks and issues, and ensuring clear and effective decision-making. We'll assess you against these behaviours during the selection process:

Communicating & Influencing (skilful bullying)
Delivering at Pace (intense bullying)
Leadership (incompetent bullying)
Seeing the Big Picture (erm, which one?)
The national salary range is £81,338 - £89,472, London salary range is £84,458 - £94,690.

Has anyone any fucking idea what the fuck they're drivelling on about?
ahh... "Some of MoJ’s terms and conditions of service are changing as part of Civil Service reform."

*****

This makes me laugh - hysterical laughter. They are doing this arse about face. OFPS launched February 2025. The OFPS program should have been informed by a Business Process Reengineering (BPR) project firstly. Ha ha they are now looking at doing the BPR and advertising roles 18 months later.You couldn’t make this up. Most important role advertised is actually the 23239 - Change Systems Project Officer who will be mapping the ‘as is’ processes and then design the ‘to be’ processes. I can guarantee you all that they will not consult with the frontline officers re the current and future processes. I have repeatedly said that frontline officers know the problems and the solutions but no, the officers are not considered clever enough are they! The officers MUST be part of the mapping processes.

Senior management who have come up with the whole OFPS are Fuckwits (excuse that but I don’t think this deserves me to find a more polite way of saying it). I will bet my last £100 quid this is not going to end well as JB regularly references. Anon

*****

So AI, what is a Business Process Reengineering Project? 

A Business Process Reengineering (BPR) project is a radical, project-based management strategy that completely tears down and rebuilds core organizational workflows, systems, and structures from the ground up. Unlike incremental improvement methods (such as Business Process Improvement or Six Sigma), which tweak existing routines, BPR aims for dramatic, breakthrough leaps in performance metrics like cost, speed, quality, and customer service.

Core Characteristics of a BPR Project

Radical Redesign: It challenges every existing assumption and tradition rather than patching current flaws.

End-to-End Focus: It shifts an organization from a rigid, department-based structure to a fluid, process-based one.

Information Technology as an Enabler: IT is used to fundamentally transform operations (e.g., replacing manual paper invoicing with automated electronic systems), not just speed up old tasks.

Finite Scope: It is managed as a distinct, large-scale project rather than an ongoing daily routine.

Typical Phases of a BPR Project

1. Define Goals: Align high-level business objectives (like reducing cycle times or cutting operational costs) with strategic targets.

2. Map the "As-Is" State: Analyze current workflows, document steps, and pinpoint bottlenecks or redundant tasks.

3. Design the "To-Be" State: Rebuild the workflow from scratch using fresh process diagrams and new technology foundations.

4. Implement and Manage Change: Roll out the new structure supported by heavy leadership commitment, staff training, and active change management to ease employee resistance.

*****

You were right, JB, productivity IS the answer!

"Barclays is cutting its staff by around 5,000 as it introduces more artificial intelligence (AI) into its work processes. Barclays said the changes were the result of an ongoing modernisation plan, with the use of AI being the "icing on the cake" of its strategy.... "AI has an important role to play and may have a more important role to play in the future."

Oh.

"The Ministry of Justice projects the tool will save around 450,000 hours annually for frontline officers... Productivity improvement: The Justice Transcribe AI‑enabled transcription tool... Identifying opportunities for productivity improvement ..."

"The Project Delivery Function aim is to have capable and empowered teams, delivering Project Delivery excellence... The Change Officer role is an integral role within both Area and National Change Delivery teams which work across Prison and Probation... an exciting opportunity to shape and deliver a significant programme of change across probation services...facilitating the smooth implementation of HMPPS Gateway Management System and HMPPS EQuiP Process Management system and processes within HMPPS."

* "Some of MoJ’s terms and conditions of service are changing as part of Civil Service reform."

** "Artificial intelligence plays a growing and transformative role in probation services, primarily by reducing administrative workloads, enhancing record accuracy, and supporting risk management."

*** "HMPPS does not have actual time saved data to monitor how far estimated time savings have been achieved."

--oo00oo--

AI Action Plan Explorer

The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is at the forefront of responsible AI adoption across government. One year on from publishing the AI Action Plan for Justice, this explorer highlights progress against our ambitions. We are committed to being transparent about how we use AI and will continue to work with industry, academia, civil society and the wider public sector to realise its benefits safely and responsibly.

Fred is an AI-powered chatbot that helps people on probation understand their requirements and stay on track with appointments, unpaid work, licence conditions, and rehabilitation activities. By providing clear, accessible information when it is needed, Fred helps people navigate probation more confidently and reduces uncertainty about what is expected of them.

As part of wider efforts to modernise probation services, Fred demonstrates how AI can make public services more accessible, responsive and user-centred. By providing personalised guidance and on-demand support, the tool aims to improve engagement, support compliance, and enable probation staff to focus on higher-value, person-centred interactions. Fred does not make any decisions regarding sentence management, nor does it discuss content outside of probation.

The project is currently being piloted in London, Norfolk and North Kent. Early feedback from both people on probation and practitioners has been very positive.

One individual reflected: “When I left prison, I was completely isolated, with addiction and mental health struggles. If I'd had Fred to talk to, it would have been a lifeline”.

Future is Local

Sadly sometime ago Blogger felt it not worth the bother of being able to share videos from YouTube and as a consequence I've felt not only irritated, but seriously inconvenienced. Anyway, due to the magic of AI and pressing a few buttons in the right order, here we have the HMI saying a lot of interesting things at the Napo AGM and conference last week.

Martin Jones at Napo AGM 2026: The Future of Probation Lies Locally

AI Buzzword/ Buzz phrase Bingo

Forget all that stuff about £700million and 1,300 new Probation Officers - the answer as we now know is AI and Justice Transcribe is boosting productivity amazingly!  

Justice Transcribe has saved an estimated 266,667 working hours across more than 1.6 million probation meetings since its rollout, according to the National Audit Office. The Ministry of Justice projects the tool will save around 450,000 hours annually for frontline officers.

Ok, there are one or two problems:-

i.e. shitloads of extra work as highlighted by the NAO report: "the pilot... recommended regular quality assurance audits and training on how to undertake a meaningful human review. Training and guidance materials emphasise the importance of reviewing the AI notes and the app included reminders for staff to do this at the point of use. For individual meetings, probation officers are expected to review the outputs from the tool before they add them to the national case management system."

There'll now be new well-paid managerial-level posts created for the chosen chumocrats who will deliver JT training & guidance for the frontline monkeys... and, of course, send a shitload of new emails reminding those monkeys to "review the outputs from the tool before they add them to the national case management system."

It aint gonna end well...

*****

Justice transcribe still requires you to review and edit what it has recorded…. That still takes time…. which it often records names / places wrong. It also doesn’t capture body language or HOW things are said/ the tone. That can be so revealing.

Now we have dense contact logs full of fluffy language making everything sound professional and more than it is. It’s the same repeated phrases for everything. Generic. Robotic… “no intervention completed due to crisis management and stabilisation”… you could play AI buzzword/ buzz phrase bingo!!!

*****

“no intervention completed due to crisis management and stabilisation”… you could play AI buzzword/ buzz phrase bingo!!!

 Ok, lets play AI buzzword/ buzz phrase bingo!!!

Over to you.....

Update

Anon 08:08 - I’ll have ‘meaningful engagement’, ‘explored protective factors’, ‘emotional regulation’, ‘strengths-based approach’, ‘identified areas for further exploration’ and, of course, ‘crisis management and stabilisation’ for a full house, please!

Productivity is the Answer!

We all know that whatever the question, the answer is "£700million and 1,300 extra staff" but actually the real answer appears to be 'automation and productivity'. This from an NAO report published last week:-

Productivity improvement: The Justice Transcribe AI‑enabled transcription tool

This case study focuses on one example of a productivity improvement to automate and improve processes, where the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) sought to improve productivity within the Probation Service by introducing a transcription tool, Justice Transcribe, for probation officers to use in meetings. MoJ and HMPPS expect that this tool will lead to productivity improvements by reducing the amount of time needed to write up meeting notes; improving the quality of those notes; and improving the quality of the interactions probation officers have in the meetings, because they are not focused on note writing. By reducing the time probation officers spend writing up supervision meetings they have with people on probation, Justice Transcribe makes more time available for activities that directly contribute to public protection and rehabilitation. The case study sets out how the tool was identified, developed, tested, scaled and embedded into operational practice by MoJ and HMPPS. It also highlights key lessons from each stage of implementation. 

The case study is intended as a practical example for civil servants and public sector leaders considering similar productivity initiatives, providing insights into the decisions, governance arrangements, testing approaches, implementation activities and evaluation methods that supported delivery. This publication is the first of a series of case studies we plan to publish highlighting practical steps public bodies have taken to improve their productivity and the lessons others can learn from them.

The capacity challenge in the Probation Service 

1 The Probation Service has been under significant strain from staffing shortfalls and increasing demand. In our report Building an effective and resilient Probation Service, we found that, in July 2025, in 10 out of 12 probation regions, Probation Officers were working at above 100% capacity on average. Data from April 2024 indicated that the service had been operating with only around half of the staff needed to run sentence management as intended. In January 2026, the Sentencing Act was passed which introduced measures intended to increase the use of community-based sentences, placing further demands on the service. At the end of June 2026, only 74% of Probation Officer grade posts were filled. 

2 In February 2025 HMPPS established its ‘Our Future Probation Service’ (OFPS) programme. Its purpose is to improve performance, increase retention and reduce staff sickness absence. The programme aims to free up operational capacity by 25% by April 2027. Justice Transcribe, a transcription and summarisation tool enabled by artificial intelligence (AI), has been developed to reduce the amount of time probation officers spend writing up notes of the meetings they have with people on probation, improve the quality of the meeting notes and improve engagement in meetings. This case study sets out how MoJ and HMPPS developed and rolled out Justice Transcribe, and some key lessons for other organisations interested in a similar tool.

Identifying opportunities for productivity improvement 

3 Probation officers conduct approximately 3.7 million supervision meetings annually.3 An accurate record of the key points of these meetings is important for managing risks to the public and tracking progress with sentencing requirements. Writing up meeting notes and recording them in the case management system was time‑consuming and created a risk of poor quality and inaccurate records. 

4 The idea for Justice Transcribe came from front-line probation teams, who had identified the potential for AI-enabled transcription and summarisation to help them manage their workload and were exploring commercial tools on the market. HMPPS assessed the idea alongside wider organisational priorities and considered several factors, including the following.

Productivity improvement 

15 HMPPS expects productivity benefits from Justice Transcribe to include both time savings and quality improvements. It forecasts that Justice Transcribe will save around 450,000 hours per year for front-line probation officers. This estimate is based on an assumed time saving of 10 minutes per meeting on average and that the tool is used for 70% of the 3.7 million meetings a year. HMPPS also expects additional savings for support and other staff. As at April 2026, HMPPS estimated it had a capacity gap of 3,500 FTE probation staff. It expects Justice Transcribe will release time savings equivalent to 470 FTE probation officers, support and other staff, helping it to reduce this capacity gap. These estimates are based on modelling assumptions, and HMPPS told us it is planning further evaluation work to validate time savings in practice and collect more robust evidence of how the tool has changed the delivery of face-to-face supervision. 

16 HMPPS does not have actual time saved data to monitor how far estimated time savings have been achieved. However, it does have data on the number of meetings for which the tool has been used. Between 7 October 2025 and 14 September 2026, over 1,600,000 meetings were summarised using Justice Transcribe. HMPPS estimates that using Justice Transcribe has saved probation officers around 266,667 hours over this period.

17 HMPPS also holds feedback data from staff. Between launch and 2 June 2026, staff using the tool reported high satisfaction rates, with an average of 4.7 stars out of 5 across 63,000 in-app reviews. Probation officers we spoke to told us that Justice Transcribe saved significant amounts of time and improved the quality of meeting summaries as well as interactions in supervision meetings: 

“What it has allowed us to do is... have more meaningful conversations with the people we’re managing… being more active listeners, … rather than having our attention diverted elsewhere.” (Probation Officer) 

HMPPS also holds data on staff retention and sickness absence, so it could use this information to track whether uptake of Justice Transcribe is associated with benefits such as lower sickness absence or improved staff retention.

Further evaluation 

18 MoJ and HMPPS started an internal evaluation of the national rollout of the tool in 2026. This will include evaluation of how the tool is used in practice, how errors are identified and corrected, and an assessment of the quality of the final records. This national evaluation is an opportunity to build on the insights from the pilot and determine the full impacts of the tool, including the extent of time savings and quality improvements. It is also an opportunity to assess evidence of the benefits including, for example, improved retention rates or reductions in sickness absence.

Quality assurance of case management records

20 The pilot evaluation identified that there was a risk that meeting summaries were not adequately reviewed by probation officers. It recommended regular quality assurance audits and training on how to undertake a meaningful human review. Training and guidance materials emphasise the importance of reviewing the AI notes and the app included reminders for staff to do this at the point of use. For individual meetings, probation officers are expected to review the outputs from the tool before they add them to the national case management system.

21 MoJ and HMPPS are developing their quality assurance procedures. The Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government recommends that public bodies establish performance metrics for AI systems that measure the accuracy of model outputs.The national evaluation will include a linked case audit which will compare a sample of transcripts, AI-generated summaries and final case records to establish whether practitioners identify and correct errors or omissions and add relevant context and professional judgement. HMPPS also plans for regional Performance, Assurance and Risk teams to carry out case audits to look at the quality of the case records, alongside ongoing supervision by Senior Probation Officers that will include review of case management records. At present, however, there is no quality assurance mechanism to monitor the accuracy of the original transcript. This makes it difficult for MoJ and HMPPS to monitor the technical quality of the tool or the risk of probation officers becoming over-reliant on AI-generated summaries and not checking them. This could be addressed, for example, through periodic reviews of a sample of audio recordings, transcripts, summaries and final case records.