Thought Piece 6

Firstly, I vote no!

Secondly, I agree with the Public Accounts Committee, a well-run probation service is a must-have. That much is obvious. What isn’t obvious is how anyone thinks a service on its knees can be stabilised with a measly 4% pay offer. If we’re serious about building something that actually works, then 20% is a starting point, not some wild, irresponsible demand. You don’t rescue a collapsing system with loose change, glossy adverts and motivational quotes.

No one is surprised that HMPPS’s latest shiny programme, Our Future Probation Service, is unlikely to be sufficient. A rebrand is not reform. It’s the same system, the same pressures, the same culture of JFDI and abuse just wrapped in nicer language. And the delusions of AI and increased tagging as a solution? That’s technological wishful thinking dressed up as policy.

Probation services in England and Wales can be brought back from the brink, the PAC report alludes to this, but only if leaders are willing to confront the culture and problems that’s helped drive it there. A culture built on the abuse of goodwill, routine gaslighting of staff, relentless emotional strain, and the normalisation of trauma is not a foundation. You can’t physically, financially and emotionally drain a workforce, while under resourcing the service itself, and then act shocked when the system fails.

Thirdly, can we stop with the emotional manipulation? Stop the false advertising calling frontline staff and work “extraordinary”. Stop brainwashing staff into thinking “we don’t do this job for the money”.

I do come to work to be paid. I’m not a “hero” and my work is not “extraordinary”. That’s not cynical, that’s reality. If the Chief Probation Officer and the layers of Regional Directors, Heads of Operations and Heads of PDUs truly come to work purely for the love of the job, they’re welcome to wear a cape and donate their salaries to the people on the frontline actually holding the risk, the caseloads, and the consequences when things go wrong.

Lastly, frontline practitioners already know the solutions to the probation crisis. The committees have heard us. The inspectors have heard us. The inquiries have heard us. The evidence exists. The voices are there. The only thing missing is the will of the leaders to act.

Probation Officer

--oo00oo--

Probation services pushed to the brink of collapse in England and Wales risk endangering public

A new report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns that the Probation Service in England and Wales is being placed under significant strain, seriously impeding its ability to protect the public and reduce reoffending rates.

Read the report
Read the report (PDF)
Inquiry: Efficiency and resilience of the Probation Service
Public Accounts Committee

In 2024-25, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) spent £1.34bn on the Probation Service. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9bn a year.

The number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all-time high. At the end of March 2025, the recall prison population was 13,583, accounting for 15% of the prison population, a 49% increase since June 2021.

Since the Probation Service was brought under full public control in 2021, its performance has deteriorated, along with an overall rise in reoffending rates. Last year, the service met just seven of its 27 performance targets. Three years earlier it was meeting half of its targets.

HMPPS’s’ new programme, Our Future Probation Service, was introduced in an effort to combat this declining performance. However, the PAC warn that this is unlikely to be sufficient.

The MoJ does not have a strong history of implementing digital change programmes well, and crucially they have yet to make decisions on changes they plan to make to the level of supervision some offenders receive.

Given the risk these decisions could pose to the public, the PAC is calling for the MoJ and HMPPS to set clear thresholds for the level of risk they are willing to accept, to help monitor operational and public protection risks.

Evidence to the inquiry showed that people classed as low-risk often require support to prevent them reoffending. HMPPS’ planned changes to probation will likely reduce supervision for these lower-risk offenders, while involving a large increase in electronic monitoring.

Noting serious performance issues with the electronic monitoring service, including delays by Serco in fitting tags, the PAC is seeking more information on how the company is performing from government, as well as what role third sector and private sector organisations will play in probation to make up for this reduction in supervision.

The vacancy rate for probation officers increased from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025. Probation officers are estimated to have been working on average at 118% capacity for several years, though recent findings suggest this figure is likely much higher. The inquiry heard evidence that the Probation Service's culture is built on ‘emotional strain' and 'trauma’.

The PAC is sceptical that HMPPS has a real understanding of how many staff it needs to sufficiently improve performance. The report calls for HMPPS to set out when and how it expects to be able to provide clarity to staff on when their workloads will reduce to acceptable levels.

The PAC was concerned to learn that when evaluating the risk of harm presented by offenders, practitioners only adequately assessed 28% of cases in 2024, compared to 60% of cases in 2018-19. This report calls for the MoJ to set out a clear timeline for when it expects its performance against key metrics to improve.

Chair comment

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

“The probation service in England and Wales is failing. The endpoint of this failure is demonstrated by our report, which shows the number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all-time high.

"It was deeply alarming to hear of probation staff working under immense pressure in a seemingly toxic environment, in a culture built on emotional strain and trauma. This not only raises concerns about the toll the overall system is taking on their mental health but the impact it is having on their ability to perform their duties. The public’s safety relies on them doing so.

“Unfortunately, the landscape for probation is not going to become more forgiving for a service which has slipped into decline in recent years, as plans to free up capacity, including with early release schemes, in other parts of the crisis-ridden justice system are likely to increase demand.

"Well-run probation is a must-have, helping those who have served their time find their place back in society. HMPPS accepts that the current picture is unsustainable, but its own planned changes could cause further disruption and place more pressure on overstretched staff. The probation service is already teetering on the brink. Government’s immediate goal must be to avoid making matters worse.”

Thought Piece 5

It’s almost impressive how much spin can be wrapped around numbers this bad. We’re told to feel reassured.

“Investment”
“Transformation”
“Technology”
“Opportunity”

Meanwhile HM Inspectorate of Probation has just reported that less than half of cases are meeting the standard to keep people safe. Less than half. Apparently that’s what “rebuilding the service” looks like now.

• Two thirds staffing.
• SPO shortages.
• AP beds full.
• Pre-release planning collapsing.
• Reset disrupting risk work.
• Early releases dumped on already stretched teams.

But don’t worry, we’ve got AI transcripts and tagging contracts. Because nothing says public protection like a laptop and an ankle bracelet.

The language is the giveaway. “Difficult choices will need to be made.” Translation: 

• cut contact, 
• script supervision, 
• move people through faster and hope nothing blows up.

It’s not reform. It’s rationing. They’re not strengthening probation. They’re shrinking it and calling it innovation. And the real insult? This is all being sold as a success story, while the people actually doing the job are told to clap for 4% and be grateful. If this is what £700 million buys, I’d love to see what underfunding looks like!

• You can’t run public protection on PowerPoint slides and pilots.
• You can’t replace experience with “digital solutions.”
• And you can’t collapse standards to under 50% and still pretend the system is fine.

This isn’t transformation. It’s a slow managed decline with better PR.

Anon

--oo00oo--

Yup, and the following is just cringeworthy bollox:

"While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases we inspected, following the region’s inspection in 2024, we also saw strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety."

Riddle me this, Jones: how the fuckity fuck fuck can "sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident" be construed as "strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety."

It's word salad; it's meaningless drivel... it's a sequence of non sequiturs throughout. But t'was always thus in HMI probation reports, with areas/OMU's scoring teen% yet leadership rated as strong. Gotta protect that pension pot (and the gong they promised if you behave).

Anon

--oo00oo--

It’s the classic inspection paradox, isn’t it. “Work to keep people safe not sufficient in most cases”…but somehow also…“strategic progress, strengthened protection, psychological safety, positive culture.”

If this were any other profession, failing in over half of cases would be called what it is:failure. In probation it gets translated into management poetry. Because admitting the obvious, that the service is under-resourced and unsafe, would mean confronting the people who control the budget. So instead we get paragraphs of soft language and “green shoots”. It’s not analysis. It’s cushioning.

When less than half of cases meet the required standard, that isn’t “progress”. That’s a red warning light. But red doesn’t look good in a ministerial briefing, so we get beige.

Anon

--oo00oo--

"It’s not analysis." Fucking too right... Jones' lukewarm fudge would have been dismissed out of hand by a judge.

I know I'm reaching back in time here, bear with me... if such equivocal nonsense had ever been submitted to a court in a full PSR (remember them, peeps?) the judge/magistrate would have had a dickie fit. On one occasion the Crown Court liaison PO told me "the judge asked me to tell you to make your bloody mind up. He's adjourned the case for a week to allow you time to have a good, hard think & re-submit something of value." Those were the days when a report would be read in advance by the sentencing judge and the CCLO quizzed about any discrepancies or outlandish proposals.

I dread to think what passes as a report these days.

Anon

The Inspector Speaks

Sentencing Act January 2026

I was pleased to see the Sentencing Act receive royal asset yesterday evening, together with the government’s reassurance that the reforms are supported by plans to rebuild the Probation Service – including investment of up to £700m over the next three years, increased ability to tag offenders, and new technology aimed at reducing administration, so staff can focus on work that reduces reoffending.

It is positive that the Act will not take effect immediately, giving the Probation Service time to prepare for the incoming changes. However, we know that some measures, including the extension of Suspended Sentence Orders and changes to Remand, will come into force in just two months, while implementation planning continues for more complex changes.

I have spoken recently about my support in principle for many elements of the Act and the opportunity it provides to transform the justice system.

However, I have been clear that there will be challenges in ensuring the gap between probation resource and the requirements of the Act are reconciled, and that difficult choices will need to be made around what to prioritise for maximum impact.

I have also warned that there is a danger of the reforms collapsing public confidence in probation unless they are implemented with great care and thought, and the right investment is made in the service in the short to medium term. Failing to address these point risks setting the service up to fail.

I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Department throughout 2026 to advise on how our inspection findings can inform next steps. In particular, I will be sharing the results of our Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection programme, which publishes its first report next week (29 January), with a focus on what improved probation practice can do to make the public safer and reduce harm to victims.

--oo00oo--

Dynamic Inspection of Public Protection in Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Chief Inspector’s judgement

This review of the Probation Service’s public protection across Kent, Surrey and Sussex revealed that, whilst there had been improvements since our last inspection, concerningly, work to keep people safe met the required standard in less than half the cases inspected for ‘assessment’ and ‘implementation and delivery’. In addition, just over half the cases met this standard for case ‘planning’ and ‘reviewing’.

The region’s public protection work had been made more challenging by large-scale national changes in response to prison overpopulation. We found that more support was needed for staff managing complex cases, particularly those involving domestic abuse, and work needed to be done to ensure consistency across all cases.

A primary concern was a lack of quality information sharing of the risks posed by individuals on probation, with probation service and police colleagues highlighting the challenges faced by both organisations to balance public protection with proportionate, compliant information sharing. We were encouraged to see work underway and resource allocated to strengthen relationships. However, there remained no centrally driven directive on what should be shared. This was a long-standing issue which continued to undermine the region’s ability to understand fully the risk posed by those they supervised. A national strategic approach to ensure consistency and compliance from both probation and partners was required to facilitate effective public protection work.

The region was affected by ongoing workforce challenges, with understaffing at both probation officer and senior probation officer grades at the time of the inspection. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads and risk to the public. Constraints including proximity to London, associated high costs of living, lengthy vetting procedures and limited autonomy in recruitment continued to compound these workforce pressures.

In response, the region had introduced a range of innovative strategies to optimise resources, including the use of technology and artificial intelligence, and was working to address training gaps to improve the quality of case management, despite limited resources.

While sufficient work to keep people safe was not evident in enough of the cases we inspected, following the region’s inspection in 2024, we also saw strategic progress in strengthening public protection work, improved staff accountability and engagement, and a commitment to building a culture that supported learning and psychological safety.

--oo00oo--

Inspection commentary (highlights)

Case inspections highlighted that, for both assessment and implementation and delivery, less than half the cases met the required standard to keep people safe. Planning and reviewing met the required standard in just over half the cases. There were indicators that the sufficiency of work to keep people safe was on an upward trajectory in Kent, Surrey and Sussex across all the above areas. Practitioners were completing meaningful home visits and speaking to the families and support networks of people on probation where appropriate to improve risk management. MAPPA cases (multi-agency public protection arrangements) were also managed effectively. Planning for restrictions and monitoring was generally stronger than planning for interventions and programmes to address risk. Restrictions were consistently included in plans and compliance arrangements were clear, although there was less detail on interventions that would take place to address attitudes and behaviour.

Large-scale national change and responses to prison over-population, as well as delays in sentencing, had a destabilising effect on people on probation, making public protection work in Kent, Surrey and Sussex more challenging. Those sentenced and released on the day from court, due to time served on remand, meant pre-release planning could not be delivered in a meaningful way. The increase in people on probation due to early release from custody schemes also affected the time available to set services up to meet their needs and manage their risks. Short recall periods were at risk of disrupting continuity and partner agency involvement, often leaving probation practitioners as the only consistent presence throughout the sentence.

Although Probation Reset arrangements were outside the region’s control, they had a detrimental impact on public protection work. Planned service delivery including challenging conversations or interventions were often disrupted by reset, a concern that was most pronounced in complex domestic abuse cases. Regional leaders were implementing a model to transfer all reset cases to a dedicated hub, though this process was still being refined and audited. ‘Quick guides’ outlined eligibility criteria and checklists for pre-reset tasks, with guidance focused mainly on recording and concluding processes. However, casework inspections highlighted varied and inconsistent practices in which victim and risk information was prioritised at transfer, creating a sense of instability and lack of coherence. Reset hubs were in the early stages of implementation, with communication and monitoring mechanisms already in place, though their intended effect on consistency had not yet been fully realised.

Challenges faced in managing risk to the public were compounded by long-standing staffing challenges, influenced by proximity to London and the associated high cost of living. Since the previous inspection, the percentage of qualified probation officers in post had declined, with current staffing at approximately two-thirds of the target level. There was also understaffing of senior probation officers by over 10 per cent. This inevitably affected capacity to manage demanding caseloads. The region was actively implementing measures within its control to optimise resources, such as a focus on the retention of PQiPs, where significant numbers were resigning or withdrawing. However, additional constraints, such as vetting processes and limited autonomy in recruitment, continued to complicate efforts to address these workforce pressures.

In response to continuing staffing pressures, the region had introduced a range of innovative and accountable strategies to optimise resources. These included the use of technology, artificial intelligence, and the See the Way Forward approach, which streamlined complex or duplicate processes. Sometimes tasks were reallocated, to free practitioners’ time for meaningful work, including activities that promoted public protection. The region sought to identify gaps in training by conducting training needs analyses and exploring new ways to improve this activity. The region introduced a range of activities to strengthen staff capability and support informal learning. Examples included deploying quality development officers (QDOs) to provide specialist guidance and development in key areas and implementing pod structures to promote informal learning and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing. Technology had been particularly effective, offering practitioners practical support and reassurance that solutions were being developed to alleviate workload pressures. The region was proactive in engaging in trials from central HMPPS, designed to improve the recording and accessibility of information for practitioners.

Capacity issues with APs were identified in both weeks of the inspection, compounded by lack of available bed spaces, transfers, co-working arrangements, and contingency measures that were not always effective. The region was concerned about this issue and had pursued conversations with national AP colleagues, which they felt had reached a conclusion but with no resolution. People on probation posing the highest risk of serious harm in Kent, Surrey and Sussex were often refused an AP bed due to capacity issues or placed throughout the country. This contradicted public protection principles of developing stability through support networks and resettlement.

Thought Piece 4

“Meaningful engagement” isn’t complicated or mystical. It’s not an app, a script or an AI transcript.

It’s time.

It’s sitting across from someone without a screen between you and actually listening.

It’s knowing their history because you’ve supervised them for months, not just skimmed a case note five minutes before the appointment.

It’s noticing when something feels off before it shows up on a risk tool.

It’s being able to challenge them honestly because there’s enough trust for them not to shut down or walk out.

It’s the conversations that don’t fit neatly into drop-down boxes. The bits that never make it onto a dashboard but are exactly where change happens.

It’s also professional judgement. Making decisions based on experience and instinct as well as policy. Having the space to think, not just process.

When I started, engagement meant relationships. Now it too often means logging a contact, updating different systems and proving you spoke to someone for 30 minutes.

That’s not engagement. That’s admin with a pulse.

Real engagement takes continuity, time and trust. Three things the current model systematically squeezes out.

So when management talk about “meaningful engagement”, most of us just hear another slogan for “do more with less”.

Because you can’t build trust at speed, and you certainly can’t automate it.

Anon

Be A Probation Officer

The Role

Join a modern, target-driven organisation where your primary responsibilities will include

• Completing housing referrals longer than most Russian novels
• Explaining to five agencies why nothing is your responsibility but somehow still yours
• Managing prison releases planned approximately six minutes in advance
• Assessing “risk” using different IT systems that don’t talk to each other
• Recording everything multiple times in slightly different formats
• Feeding the systems first and seeing people if time allows
• Delivering rehabilitation primarily through keyboards, drop-down menus and duplicate case notes
• Absorbing the consequences of every upstream policy failure while being told this is “innovation”

Actual face-to-face work with people will be available occasionally, subject to admin demand.

What We’re Looking For

We welcome applicants who:

• Care deeply about people (this will be gently trained out of you)
• Can tolerate high workload and low trust
• Are comfortable having professional judgement replaced by templates
• Accept that experience is optional but compliance is essential
• View burnout as a personal development opportunity
• Plan to leave within 2–3 years for a better paid job elsewhere

Long-serving staff also welcome, while stocks last.

Pay & Rewards

Enjoy:

• A decade of pay “progression” worth roughly 7–10% against an 80%+ rise in living costs
• Settlements consistently lower than comparable public sector roles
• Occasional £20 vouchers as recognition for managing life-threatening risk
• A generous 4% offer described repeatedly as “beyond remit”

Retention not guaranteed.

Career Development

• Watch newly qualified colleagues leave for police, prisons or literally anything else
• Take on their caseload
• Repeat

Our Vision

To transform probation into a streamlined, efficient throughput service where:

• Process replaces judgement
• Churn replaces experience
• Surveillance replaces support
• And “capacity” replaces care

Apply now

Because if you wanted to actually work with people, you probably should have been a nurse, teacher or social worker.

Probation Service. Keeping the spreadsheets safe since 2010

Anon

Thought Piece 3

When there was or still is a crisis in APs because of bedspace issues and capacity, the community probation officer is then expected to administer a tedious crapshoot of housing referrals- the CAS-3 being War and Peace and the AP one following close behind with a Duty to Refer and then a CRS referral to Single Homeless Project etc. 

Since when did probation become an annex of Right Move and Purple Bricks? I haven't got time or energy to write out form after form after form to cover myself in terms of contingencies because there are too many releases and not enough bed spaces and only certain tiers of offender get priority for those spaces. Where is the planning for all this? Where is the contingency? Where are the temporary APs to deal with the increase? Where is the extra funding? Where is the accountability? It's a complete farce. I don't blame the AP or CAS-3 system- they must be beleaguered, but why put them in that position? 

Probation in the community is a miserable dumping ground for the ill-thought out policies that favour prisons that are in no great shakes themselves. We are sullied with this lack of professional respect and are a clearing house for failure of will, leadership, joined-up thinking and a lack of planning. Yes, the prisons need to reduce capacity. But if you don't just warehouse them in the first place and make sure their needs are identified and addressed rather than wait until they are in the community, we are less likely to have recalls. 

Having an offender off the books of prisons for a few weeks only to be placed back in there is just musical cells and distorts figures.There needs to be proper investment in community probation and for those officers to be given their dignity and professional acumen back and, if necessary, be able to voice concerns before release. It seems the most efficient thing prisons do, is have the POM's name removed on Delius about 5 seconds after they've left the prison gates: Not our problem, matey. Yours now. Ta! Ta! Although... the tapping of that Part A is often not a long way off.

Anon

Thought Piece 2

Rejoice indeed. This is narrative management at its finest.

Strip away the victory laps and what this press release actually says is this: the system was driven to the edge of collapse, and the “solution” is to move the problem somewhere quieter. Prison capacity is stabilised not by fixing demand, prevention or sentencing culture, but by exporting pressure, risk and failure into the community and calling it reform.

Apparently the Sentencing Act now “grips the crisis”. It does, provided you accept that probation is an infinite sponge. Early release. Fixed-term recalls. Expanded tagging. “Tougher” community penalties. All of it only works if probation absorbs more people, more volatility, more scrutiny and more blame, without any meaningful expansion in staffing, pay, autonomy or infrastructure.

We’re told probation is being “backed with £700 million”. Again. As if repetition makes it real. That money isn’t going to retention, workloads or professional judgement. It’s going to tags, contracts, surveillance and tech — things that look reassuring in a press release and don’t argue back. Practitioners remain the cheapest, most expendable component of the system.

The 56-day recall cap is sold as relief. In reality it turns recall into a population-management device rather than a public protection decision. Probation still manages the destabilisation, the rapid re-releases, the risk escalation and the inevitable fallout, while ministers point at the spreadsheet and declare the crisis “under control”.

What’s missing is louder than what’s said. No acknowledgement that probation was already stretched beyond credibility. No mention of record recall rates. No reference to staff safety, attrition or the haemorrhaging of experience. No explanation of how “tougher community punishments” are delivered by a service paid below comparable roles and increasingly designed to function without professional memory.

This isn’t reform. It’s displacement.

The prison crisis has been averted by redefining where the crisis lives and then congratulating yourselves for it. Probation isn’t being backed. It’s being used.

Anon

Rejoice!

Press release

Government action to avert summer prison disaster

The prison system would have collapsed entirely by summer if not for the Government’s decisive action to keep the public safe, new analysis has revealed.

• Government action finally puts jails on a sustainable footing, projections show
• Jails would have fully run out of space by June if Government had not acted to keep public safe.
• Prison crisis will be ended through sentencing reforms and largest prison expansion since Victorian era.

Annual capacity statement published to increase transparency, part of Plan for Change.

Published today (29 January), new projections show that without the Government’s Sentencing Act – which received Royal Assent last week – the country would have completely run out of prison places as early as June this year.

This Government’s decisive action has safeguarded the police, courts, and wider criminal justice system, and avoided a potentially catastrophic breakdown of law and border.

Under the last Government, prisons were regularly run red-hot at 99% capacity, with police chiefs warning that they would need to pause “non-priority” arrests.

Without action, the police would have been unable to make arrests, and courts would have been unable to send dangerous offenders to jails.

The last government added only 500 places to the prison estate in 14 years, but this Government will never accept putting public safety at risk.

That is why alongside sentencing reforms, it is pressing ahead with the biggest jail expansion programme since the Victorian era – delivering 14,000 extra prison places by 2031 with 2,900 already built.

Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said:

These figures are a stark reminder of the ticking time-bomb we inherited in our prison system, brought on by a legacy of neglect, with only 500 places added to the estate in 14 years.

We have moved at speed to fix this and make our streets safer, as part of our Plan for Change. We’re overhauling sentencing and building thousands of prison places fast to protect the public and make sure there is always a cell for dangerous criminals.

The prison estate has operated at over 95% occupancy for more than twelve years. At one point in 2024, fewer than 100 spaces remained in the adult male estate.

Now, projections set out in the Government’s Annual Prison Capacity statement published today, show that without further action the situation would again become critical by March with demand for prison places fully exceeding supply within six months. This is despite the rapid rate at which jail spaces are currently being built.

The Sentencing Act will grip this crisis, making sure future governments always have the prison places needed to keep people safe. This will keep dangerous criminals locked up, while bringing in tough new punishments that cut crime. To keep the public safe, more criminals will be tagged than ever before, and the probation service will be backed with £700 million extra funding.   

The Act will also make changes to the recall system, with offenders who breach the conditions of their licence returned to prison for a set 56 days. This will cut the number of prisoners waiting for a Parole Board decision after being returned to custody for often minor infractions and give the Probation Service more time to prepare for a release. The most serious and violent offenders will be excluded from this change, who will only be released after they are considered by the Parole Board.

The prison population is expected to rise significantly throughout this Parliament, at around 3,000 a year without intervention, due to continued growth in police charging and prosecutions, increased court activity and longer sentence lengths.

The combination of changes to sentencing, which will slow the projected rise in the prison population by 7,500 by 2028, with £7 billion investment adding thousands of extra prison places over the next five years, will put an end to the chronic crises of the last 15 years and enable our prisons to be managed effectively with public safety the top priority.

The Government is committed to greater transparency around how prison places are managed, publishing the first Prison Capacity Annual Statement in 2024. The Sentencing Act now makes this an annual statutory requirement, setting the standard for future governments.

Background

The Government has committed up to £7 billion over the next five years to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. Since July 2024, 2,900 places have been delivered, including the new HMP Millsike in Yorkshire.

There are also more than 5000 places currently under construction. Meanwhile, around 500 more prison places are undergoing maintenance work compared to this time last year.
The full annual statement is available at Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2025 - GOV.UK

Thought Piece

We're just a dumping ground for the prison service. The beleaguered cap doffers. The national guidelines only favour the prison especially for releases. No push back allowed from community probation. How dare we have concerns from the houses of staff shaggers of offenders (weekly convictions), spice deliveries and the illicit EE shops of illegal mobile phones. So much so that we were not rated by the MOJ, despite the gaslighting, £50 vouchers (rarely) and placating about how valued we are. We literally have to beg for a pay rise, but the prisons don't. That kind of tells you where the political agenda is. Oh, but community probation, you get on with reducing the prison population with zero investment, such as proper ETE intervention. 

We're just the poor stepchild of the MOJ. "An extraordinary job done by someone like you" but paid lip service to our supposed relevance. We're all now registered POs, but have less and less autonomy and respect and you wonder why people are disgruntled? Value comes from your own zeal and motivation but it also comes from being paid properly in a dignified manner that doesn't look protracted and undignified. They really don't care about us, other than to dump their warehoused offenders for the real work to commence. But we barely have any investment in the community to be effective. This is all by design. Circus, monkeys, fatigue. 

Stop making criminal justice policy by placating people who are too dim to know what a minimum tariff is. Social media is awash with stupid people, jerking knees and foaming at the mouth with a distastefully informed racism and xenophobia wherever they see someone convicted of a crime. It's why prisons have primacy.

Anon

Insulting Pay Offer

This from Napo yesterday:-

Probation Pay Offer for 2025-2026 finally received - Napo recommend rejection

Over a year has passed since the Probation trade unions submitted a joint pay claim for 2025-2026, and despite meetings with Government Ministers who failed to deliver on their promise to produce a pay offer by Christmas and after several subsequent complaints, pay negotiations between senior Probation management and the unions resumed last week after a totally inexcusable delay.

Following the conclusion of these, a formal pay offer was received which was immediately considered by your Probation Negotiating Committee (PNC). Napo is a member led union and the role of the PNC as a nationally elected body is to arrive at a recommendation based on the merits of the employers offer. Having done so, the PNC unanimously voted to advise our members to reject this pay offer.

Since then, preparations have been under way by all parties to prepare communications and it has been agreed that these would be issued today.

Employer's pay offer main points

The employer proposes:

• A 4% increase to all pay points and bands
• A 4% increase to the following allowances: London Weighting,Prison Supplement and Standby
• Removing the minimum pay point of Band A to maintain a 5% difference between the maximum point Band 6

The employer will be issuing the full offer - with details of changes to the monetary value of all pay points - to all staff via the HMPPS Intranet - this afternoon.

Some reasons why you are being asked to reject the offer

It’s an insult
Following a disrespectful delay of over a year since the union claim was submitted, a 4% rise after years of inferior pay rises for Probation staff is an insult. The offer fails to come anywhere near to our original claim of 12% and doesn’t reflect the fact that Government Ministers have praised the huge efforts of Probation Staff in terms of their efforts to deliver Government initiatives, for example on numerous schemes to relieve prison overcrowding, in the midst of an ongoing workload crisis. It’s time that our pay should reflect that fact, and that our pay award should match the words of praise from Ministers and HMPPS senior managers.

Inadequate funding and failure to recognise the rise in the cost of living suffered by our members
This pay offer represents what HMPPS tell us were the results of discussions between HMPPS and other parts of Government (the Treasury and Cabinet Office), including the submission of a business case by the former to increase the total amount it can spend on it's wage bill. It is clear that this has produced a completely unsatisfactory outcome, with a pay offer that falls below the recorded inflation figure for all but one month of 2025. If Napo members reject this pay offer resoundingly the onus will be on the Government to produce an improved pay offer as a matter of urgency.

Comparison
The offer does nothing to move us to a position where our salaries are more comparable to those paid to the other staff working within the criminal justice system (including the Prison Service), local government and the wider Civil Service.

Who makes the decisions?
It's clear that despite the commitment of senior management negotiators, we are not in the room with those who make the final decisions on your pay. Even more reason for the Probation Service to be removed from HMPPS and the restrictions of the Civil Service Pay Remit.

Where's the money going?
The Government can seemingly find money to fund new Prisons and spend huge amounts of money on Electronic Monitoring to private companies unfit for purpose Additionally, we know that there has been an underspend of £100 million by the Probation service in this financial year. Why have we not seen any of it?

Reward and Recognition Schemes
Money that should have been made available to all staff is still squirreled away in schemes that in our view are liable to be operated unfairly and without appropriate transparency.

Geographical Allowances and Market Forces Supplements
The employer has refused to offer any movement whatsoever on the above.

Minimum wage implications
Members at the lowest pay point of Band 2 will, on the first of April 2026 yet again see their salary fall below the minimum wage on April 1st because of the inadequate rise to their payband in this pay offer.

What happens next?
We are finalising arrangements to hold an indicative electronic ballot of all full members of Napo (Probation England and Wales) next week.

Full details of the timetable and how to have your say on the 2025-2026 pay offer will be issued in the next few days, with current plans to launch the ballot next Wednesday (4th of February) with this running until the last week of the month. It is probable that the other Probation unions will consult their respective members over the same period. You are not being asked to vote on industrial action and your decision to accept or reject the pay offer will be personal to yourself. If the offer is rejected, then Napo is mandated to organise a separate statutory postal ballot where you will be asked to agree to take action and action short of strike action.

It is vitally important that you ensure that you have registered your preferred e-mail address on the Napo database and checked that we have your correct home postal address. 

If you know of any colleagues who are not a member of a trade union but who are considering joining Napo, it’s important to stress that only members of a trade union will be able to vote in an indicative ballot. All Napo members should do whatever they can to recruit new members as our greatest strength remains in numbers - further information will follow on the 'cut off' date by which new members joining will be able to vote in the ballot on this pay offer after it launches.

Branch meetings
It will be at the discretion of Branches to invite non-union members who may wish to become members of Napo so that they qualify for a vote in the indicative ballot. Branches are asked to avoid holding meetings at the same time as the National meetings listed above.

Napo will be issuing more information imminently in advance of the indicative ballot where you will be asked to vote No to the 2025-2026 pay offer, and you are also urged to take the opportunity to join one of the members meetings to raise questions.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

2025/26 probation pay offer confirmed

“In announcing the 2025/26 pay offer, I firstly want to acknowledge the time it has taken and thank you for your patience and understanding. I am also acutely aware that this prolonged process happened during a time of significant change and increased pressures on you. Your unwavering commitment to delivering vital services, supporting people on probation, and keeping communities safe represents the very best of public service.

Through concerted efforts and constructive negotiations, we have secured a headline pay award of 4% for 2025/26. In practice, the increase will be far more for many colleagues, following the pay progression paid in June 2025.

This is one of the most generous offers made in public sector pay, which goes well beyond the government's own guidance on how much public sector pay can increase this year.

We now want to help you to work out precisely what this award means for you. Today we’ve outlined the headline numbers, but this is just the start of our engagement with you on the offer. Your input matters. Please don’t miss the chance to understand the offer to make the right decision for you.”

Following the announcement that pay negotiations with trade unions resumed last week, we can confirm the details of our pay offer for probation staff.

What is the offer

The 2025/26 pay offer for all probation staff includes:

• a headline uplift for all probation staff of 4%
• a 4% increase to all cash allowances including London weighting
• an average increase of 3.44% in pay progression paid in June last year to all eligible colleagues

With the 4% headline uplift and the increases to allowances plus pay progression, the total increase in the probation pay bill would be 6.3%, which is higher than many other public sector workforces. If agreed, the headline uplift will be backdated to April 2025 and you would then receive your uplifted and backdated pay as soon as possible, likely to be April 2026.

What does this mean for me

The 4% headline uplift will be in addition to progression payments made in June. Through progression, some colleagues have received increases of up to 4.8%, with an average increase across the 10 pay ranges of 3.44%.

This offer is among the biggest increases agreed across the public sector, including the Prison Service Pay Review body's recommendations for prison officers. It goes further than the Civil Service guidance that limits headline awards plus pay progression to 3.25%.

Taking into account pay progression paid in June 2025, and the additional headline uplift confirmed today, then the value of the increase to pay for probation as a whole is 6.3%.

You can find more detail on the impact of this offer on different grades in the pay tables below, including actual amounts and increased pay points. For example, a Band 4 probation officer now at pay point 2 of their pay grade would expect to receive an increase of £1,470 for their 2025/2026 pay award, in addition to any progression pay already received.

Weekly drop-in sessions will begin this Wednesday, 28 January, where you can hear more about this offer and ask questions (see below for sign up details).

--oo00oo--

Many will feel these responses from yesterday rather neatly sum things up:-

So after more than a year of deliberate delay, broken ministerial promises, and endless rhetoric about probation “doing the heavy lifting”, this is what lands: 4%. Not 12%. Not pay restoration. Not even inflation. Four per cent - after inflation has already eaten our wages, after workloads exploded, after risk escalated, after staff were told repeatedly that probation was critical to keeping prisons from collapse. NAPO’s unanimous rejection tells you everything you need to know. This isn’t a marginal disagreement. It’s a collective judgement that the offer is fundamentally unacceptable.

Let’s be clear about what this actually is:

• A real-terms pay cut, following years of inferior awards
• A confirmation that CBF was always intended to be rolled into and used to cap any future uplift
• A pay offer that fails to match inflation, let alone restore losses
• A settlement that leaves probation less competitive than prisons, local government and the wider Civil Service
• An insult to experienced staff who received no CBF progression and carried the service anyway
• And a political choice, not a financial necessity

The most damning line in the letter is this: “We are not in the room with those who make the final decisions.” Exactly. Probation staff are expected to absorb risk, violence, scrutiny and public blame while Treasury and Cabinet Office quietly decide we are not worth paying.

Meanwhile:

• £700m is found for tagging
• Billions are found for prisons
• Private contractors remain funded despite being unfit for purpose
• £100m sits underspent in probation
• And staff at the bottom of Band 2 will fall below minimum wage again

This isn’t incompetence. It’s contempt. The service is being hollowed out, automated, deskilled and run on goodwill — and when staff finally ask to be paid properly, they’re told this is the best that can be done. It isn’t. This offer doesn’t stabilise probation. It accelerates its collapse. And anyone surprised by the anger that follows hasn’t been listening for the past decade.

******

A year’s delay, broken promises, and endless praise for “exceptional effort” and the outcome is 4%. That isn’t recognition. It’s a pay cut dressed up as an offer. Money can be found for prisons, tagging and private contractors, but not for the staff holding the system together. Even now, some will drop below minimum wage next year. That tells you exactly where probation sits in the hierarchy. NAPO's unanimous rejection says this clearly: this isn’t bad luck or fiscal reality it’s a political choice. And it confirms what many already know: probation is expected to absorb risk, blame and damage on the cheap.

******
4% is disgusting. Why wait 12 months only to offer us the exact same amount as prison were offered almost immediately? It demonstrates quite clearly where they see us in terms of priorities and value. All the waffle about Probation doing the heavy lifting and the extra stuff they asked from us, then give us such an insulting offer.

******
Let’s be clear about where we actually are, because the anger is justified but the process still matters. No one is voting on strike yet. This ballot is about accepting or rejecting the offer. If members reject it, Napo is then legally required to run a separate statutory ballot on industrial action (including action short of strike). That’s not weakness or delay, that’s the law.

What does matter right now is unity. The employer will happily watch us turn on each other – POMs vs COMs, prison vs community – because division does their job for them. This offer didn’t land because of colleagues in other roles. It landed because probation, as a whole, has been deprioritised for 15 years.

If you want to express your opposition:

• Vote to reject.
• Engage with the union consultation.
• Challenge management narratives that call this a “good offer”.
• Stop donating goodwill.

Arguing sideways only weakens the one bit of leverage we still have: collective rejection.

*****
So when the system decides a role is important, money appears quickly and without drama. JAC chairs get a 30% uplift “to reflect the demands of the role”. Judges receive 7%, then 6%, then 7% again, explicitly to protect recruitment and quality. Treasury objections melt away when the work is seen as valuable and the risk of failure is politically uncomfortable.

Probation doesn’t get that treatment. After a year of delay, we’re offered 4% — below inflation — while being told it’s “good value” and should be welcomed. That isn’t economics. It’s hierarchy. Some roles are protected. Others are expected to absorb decline quietly.

And this is exactly why the blue-on-blue arguments are a distraction. POMs, COMs, VLOs didn’t design this system or set these pay priorities. The contempt runs upwards, not sideways. Division just makes it easier to keep doing this to us again next year.

The message is simple and consistent: probation work is praised rhetorically, but priced as expendable. Until that contradiction is confronted collectively, the pattern won’t change and the figures already tell us everything we need to know.

******

This is exactly the sleight of hand people are calling out. CBF progression was already costed, agreed and paid in June under the existing three-year deal. It was not new money, not a concession, and not part of this year’s negotiation. Folding it back in now to inflate the headline figure is double-counting.

The only new money on the table for 2025/26 is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being cited – the “average 6.3%”, the “generosity”, the comparison with other sectors – relies on re-labelling progression that staff had already earned and already received.

That’s why the offer feels dishonest. If the deal were genuinely 6.3%, it would be paid as 6.3% to everyone. It isn’t. For anyone at the top of their band, or anyone who didn’t receive progression, this is a flat 4% after a year-long delay, backdated and paid a year late.

Calling this one of the “most generous offers in the public sector” doesn’t make it so. It’s an accounting exercise designed to mask a below-inflation rise by recycling money that was never in dispute. And staff are right to be angry about it.

*****
This isn’t spin, it’s gaslighting. The only new money in this deal is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being claimed – the “average 3.44%”, the “total 6.3%”, the talk of generosity is money already agreed, already costed and already paid last June under a previous deal. Recycling that progression to inflate the headline is double-counting. If this were really a 6.3% pay rise, everyone would be getting 6.3%. They aren’t. For anyone at the top of their band, this is just 4% after a year-long delay, below inflation and paid late. Staff aren’t angry because they don’t understand the maths, they’re angry because they do.