An Impossible Job

I think the following two contributions sum the situation up neatly:-

So who thought that justice would be a priority?

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/alex-norris

Minister of State (Minister for Border Security and Asylum) and Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice - Alex Norris MP

Biography

Alex Norris was appointed Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice on 20 July 2026. He was previously Minister of State at the Home Office between 6 September 2025 and July 20 2026.

He was previously Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government between 9 July 2024 and 6 September 2025.

He has been the MP for Nottingham North and Kimberley (and its predecessor Nottingham North) since June 2017.

Minister of State (Minister for Border Security and Asylum) - The Minister’s responsibilities are:

Border Security Command: reducing small boat arrivals and organised immigration crime
reducing the asylum caseload, exiting hotels and reducing the supported population
Immigration Enforcement: Increasing returns (including FNOs), immigration detention estate expansion, illegal working
asylum, illegal migration and returns policy, safe and legal policy and refugee resettlement policy
reducing net migration: legal migration policy
tackling visa abuse
innovative solutions
Immigration White Paper implementation
European Entry Exit System
modern slavery policy as it relates to immigration status

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Oversight of all justice portfolios, policy, and Ministry of Justice strategy
Oversight of cross-cutting emergency issues, responses supported by other ministers according to portfolio
Oversight of international business and future relations with the EU
MOJ support for the Union
Resourcing of the department

Functions of the Lord Chancellor

Judicial policy including pay, pensions and diversity (these and other operational decisions affecting the judiciary are reserved to the Lord Chancellor)

--oo00oo--

I’m not going to write Alex Norris off before he’s even started. Every minister deserves the chance to prove themselves. But I do wonder how anyone without a substantial justice background can fully appreciate the scale of what they’re inheriting. Probation isn’t something you understand from a briefing paper. It sits at the intersection of housing, mental health, addiction, domestic abuse, children’s services, employment, policing, prisons and the courts. It is where the consequences of policy decisions made across government all arrive at once.

Andy Burnham has rightly spoken about ending rough sleeping. That’s an admirable ambition. But this is where I think governments often miss something fundamental.

They talk about the “golden thread” running through assessments. What probation sees every day is the golden thread running through society.

Housing affects employment.

Employment affects offending.

Mental health affects addiction.

Addiction affects family stability.

Family breakdown affects children.

Children become tomorrow’s adults entering the criminal justice system. None of these things exists in isolation, yet government too often organises itself as if they do.

Probation doesn’t have the luxury of seeing only one department’s problem. We deal with the whole person and the cumulative effect of every public service that has either succeeded or failed them. So I genuinely hope the new Justice Secretary spends less time asking, “What does justice need?” and more time asking, “How does justice fit into everything else?”

Because until government starts seeing the same golden thread that frontline probation staff see every day, we’ll keep treating symptoms while wondering why the causes never seem to go away.

Time to say 'no'!

Some recent contributions:-

There's growing disconnect between the wellbeing message coming from HMPPS nationally and the day-to-day experience being described by many frontline staff. If people consistently feel that targets take precedence over wellbeing, then the issue isn’t the message, it’s whether that message is translating into practice.On the removal of the WMT, the FAQs repeatedly refer to line management discussions, professional judgement and management oversight. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with that. The WMT was never perfect. But it did provide a shared reference point. PP and SPO could both see the same information and have a discussion based on objective evidence.

From September, the emphasis appears to shift much more towards SPO judgement informed by dashboards, operational data and discussion. That inevitably changes the power dynamic.

Im sure a lot of SPOs will continue to act fairly and professionally. But good systems should be designed to protect people when relationships become difficult, not only when they are good. If a PP believes their workload is unsafe and their SPO disagrees, what independent evidence is there to resolve that disagreement? A good governance system shouldn’t rely solely on trust between individuals; it should provide transparent evidence that both parties can rely upon.

For me, that’s the real concern. We seem to be moving from an evidence-based conversation about workload to a relationship-based one. If trust is high, that may work well. But if trust has already been eroded, it risks creating inconsistency, discouraging challenge and leaving some staff feeling they have little objective basis on which to question workload decisions. That, more than the removal of a percentage figure, feels like the real cultural shift taking place.

--oo00oo--

HMPPS has completely lost touch with what it feels like to be a frontline PP. Every answer seems to be another dashboard, another AI tool, another restructure, another “holistic approach”, another management conversation. What nobody ever seems willing to acknowledge is the obvious: there is simply too much work.

No amount of dashboards will create more hours in the day.
No amount of management discussion will reduce an impossible caseload.
No amount of corporate wellbeing rhetoric will undo the damage of years of relentless pressure.

We’re expected to carry more risk, more responsibility, more bureaucracy and now, apparently, accept that if we feel we’re at capacity we’ll just have a conversation about it. What happens when that conversation ends with “I think you can take another case”? That’s not workload management. That’s asking PPs to negotiate their own breaking point. And let’s stop pretending this is about modernising the service. It’s about normalising overload.

The WMT may have been flawed, but at least it gave practitioners something objective to point to. Now even that is disappearing, replaced by assurances that everything will be fair because managers will use their judgement. Forgive me if I don’t find that reassuring.

Every year we’re told the next reform will fix things. Every year workloads increase, experienced colleagues leave, sickness rises and the people left behind are expected to absorb even more.

At some point HMPPS needs to stop telling us to be resilient and start admitting the truth: the system only functions because frontline staff are sacrificing their own health, family life and professional wellbeing to keep it afloat. That isn’t leadership. It’s exploitation.

--oo00oo--

Good points, all the things that we try to as POs such as building trust, discussions, focus and understanding the offenders we work with has unfortunately not only reduced in that work but also relationships between frontline POs and the SPO’s who sit in their offices dishing out work to those they know can take pressure and on the other hand protecting their friends with the easier cases. 

Possibly a delicate subject but how many of us are holding extremely high caseloads because others cannot cope? I am sick to death of people receiving a full wage when they are on a reduced caseload because they are ‘stressed’ we are all stressed and adding to my caseload stresses me more and more especially when so many people appear to be working from home more than they should be and those of us in the office have to deal with the fallout from their cases. 

How many times do you see your SPO out of their office? How many times is the SPO in after you and left before you? A lot of the new SPO’s are freshly qualified can make up a good story for interviews but never asked the basic leadership questions and that is why there is no leadership in the NPS just a full on ‘do as I say, not do as I do’. 

I no longer can have serious risk based conversations with the SPOs in my team as they are hardly there and so inexperienced, what happened to the five year post qualification rule? I hear you ask why don’t I get an SPO role, well it is because it does not pay enough for me to listen to moans, record sick and holidays and at the same time make life easier for some and not others.I also enjoy working with people who need my support and guidance and I am good at that and dealing with the violent ones who other people will not work with. 

However, a warning for those further up the greasy pole, people like me are now rare in probation a dying breed, a dinosaur some may say, however with three months left to go, I can already hear the voices, 'I cannot take that case', 'I won’t be taking that' and just the other day, ‘miserable bast*rd why are they taking early retirement, how can they do this to us.‘ 

I say, time to pick up the gauntlet, baton or the reins and get on with it, time to stand up and be counted and it is alright to say no, which is a lot harder than saying yes. What does the future hold, I don’t know but will be watching the next episodes from outside.

Dawn of MoJ Enlightenment?

Tomorrow is a significant day for the UK as yet another Labour leader 'kisses hands' and is invited to form a new government by HM King Charles III. Many of us hope dearly that almost certainly we will get a new Justice Minister, as well as a rowing back of the drive for digitisation at the MoJ and HMPPS. Lets hope that this, coupled with a drive for devolution and shifting of power may give support to a better-informed approach to the Probation Service and the chance of re-gaining its identity and function away from the dead hand of Civil Service command and control.

As always, staunch reader and contributor 'Getafix helps us focus on things and points us in the direction of a recent speech by HMI Martin Jones. Lets hope he has the ear of Andy Burnham and the new Administration:-   

Martin Jones’ keynote speech for StandOut
Published: 13 July 2026

On 08 July 2026 the Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, gave the keynote speech at an event for StandOut, a charity that provides coaching and support to bridge the transition between prison and the community.

“I am delighted to be here for this event and would like to start by congratulating and thanking you for the brilliant work you are doing.

Your work is making a difference every day for people preparing for release and ensuring they have a better chance of succeeding when they reach the community.

This success means better outcomes for people on release, their families and their communities and it is in all of our interests to ensure more people are supported to succeed.

I was appointed Chief Inspector of Probation in the Spring of 2024, having now spent well over three decades working in justice – including latterly time in charge of the Parole Board.

Much public and political attention is focused on prison. I would argue too much.

Traditionally public discourse has focused on whether prison sentences are long enough and the size of our prison population.

But too little attention is focused on the community. How do we avoid sending people to prison and break destructive cycles of reoffending? How do we better prepare people for release?

The numbers are stark: According to the last published figures:

• 87,342 people in prison
• 248,568 people on caseload of probation (70 per cent of whom are in the community)
• 56,923 releases in last twelve months as early release schemes and changes to fix term recall have started to impact.
• 48,327 recalls in latest period.

In essence there is massive change moving pressure from our overstretched prisons to our equally overstretched probation service – where we have too few staff, with too little experience, managing too many cases.

As Chief Inspector it is important I maintain a critical eye on the problems facing the service.

I am pleased that the Government is investing more in probation – and there have been some successes. But it needs care and attention. I might even say TLC.

The service still bears the scars of change over the last 10-12 years.

According to the Public Accounts Committee the service has a staffing gap of c 25 per cent, we have a workforce that has lost too many experienced staff, and new probation staff often have a full or excessive caseload far too soon.

There is a sense that some probation “craft” has been lost.

Does the service understand enough about the people they are working with? Do they understand their lives, their problems, their worries, their needs, their risks? Our inspections tell us they do not.

There are problems with information exchange and there is, in my assessment, an excessive fear of SFOs – but despite this fear, there is a shortfall in the quality of work taking place on public protection.

It is against that difficult backdrop that the sentencing review brings further changes. In essence more people will be dealt with in the community.

How well prepared is it for that change?

Huge efforts are being made to ensure the service is as well prepared as it can be and there have been some improvements in recruitment and retention rates.

There have been changes to reduce workload, so the resources better match the demand, and new initiatives – such as justice transcribe – are freeing up probation officers to spend more of their time with people on probation rather than form filling and stuck behind computer screens.

However, more is still needed – that is why I am delighted to be here today.

In reality, we need to better harness the expertise, innovation and resources within the third sector to ensure we provide better support and services for people.

We know that most people in prison have huge unmet need that contributes to reoffending and poor outcomes. Working with organisations like Stand Out we can surely better prepare people for their release from custody.

It has always been true that if we have the right plan, we massively increase success rates.

• Support with substance misuse and mental health.
• Somewhere to live
• Something worthwhile to do.
• Support in the community – (family/friends/a mentor) someone who wants you to succeed…

Unless we get that right we see predictable failure.

• Recall because of a lack of support with problems.
• Reoffending because we have not tackled the underlying causes.
• Harm to the community and to people on probation because people are not safeguarded.

I do however see a pathway to improvement.

Despite the pressure facing probation, I still see professionals who want to do a good job. I see so much determination (maybe with some frustration) in the third sector to achieve better outcomes. And I am seeing signs that probation performance is improving. Public protection scores are up in every reinspected region. Desistance and engagement scores are better.

But the gap in delivery? That is now the task.

Can we free probation up to deliver better results, with greater local autonomy and accountability, and better join up?

How do we build to deliver this at a greater scale. Surely the answer must be for a continued realignment and investment in community provision and support.

If we can do that, we can – perhaps achieve a virtuous circle – less failure in the community, lower reoffending rates, fewer victims, safer communities.

That must surely be a driving ambition of the next steps of reform.”

Martin Jones 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

Our mission

StandOut's mission is to empower people leaving prison to transform their lives, realise their potential, and leave the criminal justice system behind - for good.

Our values

At StandOut, we’re led by our values: Champions, Connected, Committed, First Class, and Courageous. They are at the heart of everything we do – from how we work with our participants, to how we relate to each other, our partners and stakeholders. We don't believe in quick fixes, nor that life runs in straight lines, especially if someone has experienced prison. Our values keep us focused and remind us of the things that matter most.

Our history

StandOut is the vision of our founders Penny Parker and Jo Fellows.

Penny’s background was in running the highly regarded Sycamore Tree restorative justice course, which she was involved in setting up in HMPs Wandsworth, Bronzefield and Pentonville. Too often she saw that having unlocked a motivation to change in people, the practical steps to prepare for the transition out of prison were missing. When she found Resurgo’s award-winning Spear Programme, Penny thought it could be adapted to work very effectively with people leaving prison. Working with Jo, whose background was in working with young people facing barriers to employment through the Spear Programme, they brought their shared vision to reality in 2017 as they piloted StandOut in HMP Wandsworth.

Having successfully established the programme in HMP Wandsworth, in 2019 StandOut launched in HMP Pentonville, and in 2023 we launched in our third prison - HMP Wormwood Scrubs.

Cause For Hope?

From a contributor:-

Strong indications now that Lammy, not regarded by anyone as the sharpest tool in the box, is heading towards the back benches or even out of government entirely. Game over. Will the Justice shakeup see ministers such as Kiers buddy Timpson also ousted? Very likely. It is currently unconfirmed who will replace Lammy, or if he will be retained in Burnham's government at all. While some say he’ll be one of the first to get his marching orders on 20/07 others say his future at the Ministry of Justice is a subject of heavy speculation regarding how fast he is removed so he may be left hanging about whilst negotiations regarding his replacement proceed or policies are scrapped as a fall guy. Burnham is reportedly planning to scrap some of Lammy's recent policies, including the curbs on the right to trial by jury and the early release scheme aimed at easing prison capacity. Better to remove him rather than force him into humiliating U-turns.

Given these policy clashes, a change in leadership at the Ministry of Justice seems highly likely. The incoming cabinet appointments will be critical to watch, as they will undoubtedly signal a significant shift in the department's strategic and operational direction. The approach to AI and technology may see significant changes with much hyped MoJ Justice Digital and Justice AI being seen as expensive failed centralised projects the very opposite of the new decentralised approach. Burnham is for example is said to favour devolved more locally accountable Probation Services developing their own initiatives as appropriate that may see prison and probation regions playing more of a role. What is certain is that he will want to get a firmer grip on Justice with Thornberry rumoured to be first among several people being considered as a smarter upgrade who will want to have a good clear out. Streeting and Jarvis also mentioned as possible options if they do not land plum jobs elsewhere. You heard it here first.

Blimey! Tags Not Being Fitted

Thousands of offenders not wearing electronic tags, report says

Almost 9,000 people in England and Wales required to have an electronic monitoring tag did not have one, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) has found. They are likely to include violent offenders and prisoners released from jail who need to be checked on. The NAO said, as of March 2026, prison authorities were reviewing around 8,900 cases of individuals recorded as having an active monitoring order but no tag.

However, the Ministry of Justice has disputed the figure, saying its own review puts the number of unmonitored individuals at 5,450. It said the NAO figure referred to the total number of cases they are checking to see if they need monitoring.

The NAO called the current system "inefficient".

Electronic monitoring, also known as tagging, is used in England and Wales as a way of monitoring curfews and conditions of a court or prison order.

Criminals and people deemed to pose a potential risk are sometimes fitted with an ankle tag so that their movements can be monitored. These individuals can include serious offenders such as rapists and murderers. There are three types of tags: curfew tags, location tags, and alcohol tags.

A total of 28,700 people were recorded as being tagged in England and Wales as of March 2026. The NAO said some of the 8,900 cases in its report would include people who were registered as being tagged by mistake. But it also said the real number of those slipping through the system could be "significant".

People can be identified as being "unmonitored" for a number of reasons. These can include errors in the system, refusal to wear a tag, a delay in the fitting of the tag, or an arrest where the tag is removed. But it can also include people who haven't been tagged when they should have been.

Responding to the NAO's report, the Ministry of Justice said: "Public protection is our priority, which is why we're investing £100m in electronic monitoring, tagging offenders before release for the first time and strengthening victim protections via new alert systems – all of which will help cut the number of unmonitored offenders."

The National Audit Office argues the current monitoring system is not fit for purpose.

"Electronic monitoring is central to managing pressures on prisons, but it is not working effectively, creating risks to public protection," NAO chief Gareth Davies said. "Improvements are required to ensure that those who should be monitored are monitored and that breaches are responded to effectively," he added. The report also says police and probation staff often lack information or capacity to respond quickly to breaches.

People tagged are placed under strict conditions as part of their punishment. This can include having to remain in a specific area or sticking to a curfew. If someone breaches their conditions, it can result in a formal warning, being taken back to court, or an immediate return to prison.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to significantly expand electronic monitoring as part of the Sentencing Act 2026, which aims to ease prison pressures by managing more offenders in the community.

Thousands more prisoners may be released early from autumn this year as part of the new law. Reports suggest killers, rapists and sex offenders could be among them. Most will require tagging.

Several probation officers have told the BBC they are worried about how they will cope.

Probation officers are responsible for checking offenders are following the terms of their release from prison. This could include things such as wearing ankle tags or not taking drugs.

"The report makes clear we're overworked. And it's only going to get worse with more people set to do their punishment in the community," one probation officer said. "There aren't enough of us, and we have no idea how the government is going to make it work so that nobody is at risk. Because something bad will happen, someone who is dangerous and isn't monitored will kill someone," the probation officer added.

The NAO says that part of the problem is a shortfall of around 2,200 full time probation officers, which the government expects to reduce to around 1,500 by September of this year.

The watchdog also says even though the security contractor Serco - which manages the tagging system for the government - met its 95% timeliness target for tag fitting visits, "it was only successful in fitting tags on 62% of the individuals it visited within its two attempts".

In a statement, Serco told the BBC it had made "significant improvements" and was "tagging a record number of people" and "consistently" meeting key contractual measures, as recognised by the Ministry of Justice and NAO report. It added that efforts to fit tags "rely on us receiving the correct information" from relevant authorities and partners. "We attempt to fit a tag to every person who should be wearing one. Where, for reasons beyond our control, we are unable to do so, we report those breaches to the relevant authorities."

The NAO is calling on the government to improve data quality and management of the monitoring system. It added the government had been working with Serco to improve performance and reduce the backlog in fitting tags. Ministers estimate a further 22,000 people per year will need to be tagged from 2027.

"The government needs to improve the service's resilience and efficiency, otherwise expanding electronic monitoring risks wasting public money and puts public safety at risk", said Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the Committee of Public Accounts.

The Ministry of Justice said the government inherited "a failing tagging system with record backlogs". "As this report shows we have worked hard to fix this, with install rates up by nearly 50% since 2024," it said. "This is in addition to our record £700m investment in probation, recruiting 2,300 trainee probation officers over the last two years, and recruiting a further 1,300 this year - making sure the Probation Service has the resource it needs to keep dangerous offenders under closer surveillance than ever before."

Confidence Broken

I guess I should be paying more attention, but I seem to think we never covered this Guardian article from 19th June and I notice Napo are kicking up a bit of a row, no doubt with the fast-approaching AGM in mind. 

Excessive probation workloads put public at risk in England and Wales, union warns

Exclusive: Napo declares no confidence in probation service managers and threatens industrial action

The public is “at direct risk” from unsupervised ex-offenders because probation officers in England and Wales are being asked to cope with excessive workloads, a union has said.

As ministers prepare to release and monitor tens of thousands more prisoners this autumn, Napo’s executive has declared for the first time that it has no confidence in managers at the probation service.

In a worrying development for the government, the union is threatening to launch industrial action in three months’ time unless members receive increased support and pay.

The motion comes at a crucial time for the government’s plans to relieve pressure on the criminal justice system. From September, ministers will embark on the biggest expansion of tagging in British history so that up to 40,000 former offenders will be monitored by tags and overseen by probation officers – a 40% increase from the 28,000 currently on tags.

Last year, an official watchdog warned that the probation service had too few staff with too little experience and training, which it said left members of the public at risk. The public accounts committee found that longstanding staff shortages had left probation staff dealing with “excessive and unmanageable workloads”, with officers working at 126% of capacity for several years in some areas.

Tania Bassett, a Napo national official, said probation officers were unable to cope with the growing number of ex-offenders they were being asked to supervise, and many more people were ending up on the street.

“Excessive workloads and staff burnout poses a direct risk to the public with staff being unable to effectively manage the risk of their clients in the community,” she said. “Added to this is the shortage of accommodation, which will result in more people being homeless and therefore more likely to reoffend.”

Managers were trying to get rid of a tool that measures the workload each probation officer is being asked to cope with, a move that would hide the magnitude of the tasks they were being asked to perform, Bassett said.

“The loss of a workload measurement tool will leave staff, including managers, unable to see their workloads and therefore unable to evidence that they are overworked,” she said.

The Prison Service met only 26% of its targets for timeliness of appointments and delivery of services in 2024-25, down from 50% in 2022, according to the National Audit Office. The Ministry of Justice said that between 2023 and 2025, 31% of target probation appointments did not take place.

The MoJ said earlier this year that it would recruit 1,300 extra probation officers in the next year as part of a £700m investment by 2029, which included £100m for the tagging expansion by the end of this parliament. The department said “proximity monitoring technology” for domestic abusers and stalkers would be tested in a £5m pilot.

The union’s executive has voted for a motion that says a failure to address persistently high vacancy and staff sickness rates and removing a tool that measures workloads means that “the current position is untenable and cannot continue”.

It says: “[HM Prison and Probation Service’s] leadership has demonstrably failed in its duty of care to the workforce of the Probation Service, and this represents a reckless disregard for our welfare and professional integrity as well as the safety of our communities.”

James Timpson, the prisons minister, told MPs last week that the probation service was under severe pressure after disclosing that staff were each managing an average of 32 ex-offenders.

“It’s running too hot … we inherited a system that was broken, and we’re putting it all back together again. It’s going to take time,” he told the justice select committee.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We remain committed to working closely with trade unions to ensure our staff continue to get the support they need to cut crime and protect the public. We have full confidence in Probation Service leadership to deliver the necessary changes and improvements.”

--oo00oo--

Confidence Broken in HMPPS to deliver 

Napo is pressing for urgent national action to tackle the workload crisis before it pushes probation staff any further to the brink. We are calling for immediate workload protections, stronger safety measures, a fair and jointly owned workload measurement tool, protected learning time, and meaningful partnership with the trade unions. These are practical solutions that put staff wellbeing, public protection and professional standards first. 

Profession or Job?

A reader suggests "I want to propose a new thread."

‘Can Probation call itself a profession in 2026 or is it just a job?‘ 

I would argue it is now no longer a Profession if it ever was. The profession died when the service was assimilated by the Civil Service which is a Profession that contains professions such as Policy, Project Management etc but Probation or Prison Officer are occupations not professions. If for instance we were all members of professional institutes that licences and regulated our practice then it would be a different matter. Licences to practice are meaningless if given by the sole employer of a job role who would never employ someone unless they had relevant qualifications or were working towards a relevant qualification. Being a professional involves not only having:

A Specialised Body of Knowledge: Access to the occupation is barred without extensive, highly specialised academic training and intellectual instruction. It cannot be learned through a brief apprenticeship or casual trial-and-error.

A Social Contract and Public Trust: Professions are granted a degree of monopoly and status by society because they provide a vital public service (e.g., healthcare, justice, structural safety). In return, they are expected to prioritise public welfare over pure commercial gain.

Autonomy and Self-Regulation: True professions largely govern themselves. They establish their own professional bodies (such as a Bar Council, Medical Board, or Engineering Council) that set entry requirements, define standards of practice, and handle disciplinary actions.

An Enforceable Code of Ethics: Professions maintain strict, formalised ethical frameworks. Violating these codes does not just look bad-it can result in a tribunal stripping the individual of their licence to practise ("striking off" or disbarment).

Monitored Standards of Entry and CPD: Entrance requires passing rigorous, objective assessments. Once inside, members must usually demonstrate Continuous Professional Development (CPD) to maintain their legal or formal right to practise.

In short, an occupation becomes a profession only when it moves from a job anyone can try, to a regulated discipline that requires a licence, an oath, and a high level of public accountability with professional indemnity. How is Probation then more than just an occupation and in fact more like a profession? If anything it looks less like a profession than it has ever done. We are at best pseudo civil servants specialising in working with offenders but on less money.

Clueless and Uncaring HMPPS

NAPO MAG 29/05/2026

Napo Opposes HMPPS Plans to Remove Access to the Workload Measurement Tool

Napo has strongly opposed HMPPS plans to withdraw practitioner access to the Workload Measurement Tool, warning the move undermines staff safety, workload management and employer accountability. This week HMPPS have advised staff of its plans to withdraw practitioner access to the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), in advance of its removal in several months.

Napo has not agreed to these changes

We have been made aware of several untrue and incorrect statements having been made by regional senior managers to the effect that Napo, and other trade unions, have agreed to this. We have not and will not agree to these plans. It is now for any individual who has made these statements – whether out of ignorance or malice – to urgently account to staff why they have done so, retract their comments and apologise to their colleagues.

In earlier discussions that took place with the trade unions, Napo representatives have clearly and repeatedly explained to HMPPS figures the hugely negative impact their plans would have on the staff involved, and more widely in the workforce.

During these exchanges HMPPS have admitted for the first time that for a significant period the WMT underestimates the workload of the staff involved. They have failed to publicly acknowledge this in their communications on the future of the WMT, making only vague, and frankly misleading, comments on its accuracy.

These plans completely disregard previous agreements made between the employer and the trade unions on staff safety and care. HMPPS appear clueless as to how they now intend to meet their legal duty of care to monitor and manage individual workloads, for ‘sentence management’ staff and all other employees. They cannot adequately explain how they plan to provide workload reductions for staff requiring these, for instance as reasonable adjustments or as facility time for trade union representatives.

Despite claiming to value the importance of staff and their wellbeing, HMPPS have completely failed to ensure that an adequate mechanism to monitor and manage the workload of staff. HMPPS claim to have been aware that the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) under-reports on the workload of staff but has not communicated that to its employees. They tell us that they have known that this will become worse due to changes planned under the employer’s heavily criticised and under-delivering Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) programme have not yet made sufficient plans to have a replacement in place.

Napo have, for months, been calling on HMPPS to agree to the joint ownership of the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), including on any future version of this tool, and for its application to as many other workers outside of ‘sentence management’ as possible at the earliest opportunity.

We believe this is the only way for staff to have any confidence on this issue, given HMPPS’s consistent inability to adequately protect us in this regard, and be open and honest with us. Napo will now include demands for positive change, and a completely different approach by the employer, in relation to workload measurement and management.

We will be responding to a letter sent by the employer yesterday after they had decided to enact these changes, regarding industrial action in response to their failure to resolve our longstanding workloads dispute.

Napo HQ

Probation on TV

As the Probation Service in England and Wales continues on its outlier path of becoming part of the problem rather than any solution, here's a chance to see how they do things in Northern Ireland with a new BBC TV documentary series, all available on BBC iPlayer.

Childhood trauma common theme in documentary - Frampton

"I'm not saying without boxing, I would've been a tearaway or in and out of jail. But I know that because I did have boxing, it certainly helped steer me away from that," says former two-weight world champion Carl Frampton, reflecting on his recent dive into the world of probation.

He was speaking ahead of the release of a new documentary series which sees him go behind the scenes with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. Probation officers supervise more than 4,100 people who are subject to a range of court orders and licences at any given time. 

For the series, Frampton spent time with officers and those on probation, as well as hearing the stories of victims of crimes. "I just wanted to find out for myself what it's all about," he told BBC News NI.

It is the first time television cameras have been given this sort of access and the result is BBC NI programme Carl Frampton: On Probation.

Mental health issues

The former boxer previously presented Carl Frampton: Men in Crisis where he investigated why so many young men in Northern Ireland struggle with their mental health. It's unsurprising that his new documentary also explores the issue.

"It sometimes affects the way they behave," he said, adding that the "vast majority" of the service users he spoke to "have had some sort of issues with their mental health". While meeting service users, Frampton found many to be "friendly".

"I think the common denominator that I noticed anyway was trauma during childhood for the majority of them and having bad upbringings and maybe parents who were abusive and maybe abandonment issues or whatever.

"When you hear their story and you hear everything that's gone on in their lives as they were growing up, it kind of makes you feel sorry for them," he added. "I felt a lot of sympathy for them.

"You're not really surprised that they have involvement in the judicial system afterwards as they grow up into adults." Working on the show highlighted the influence boxing had on him.

He said he came from a "rough area" in north Belfast with a lot of "bad influences around", but he was very lucky that he had good influences around him such as his parents and boxing coaches.

He said he thinks the documentary will "give people a bit more of an understanding actually what they do in the probation service, and what their aim is really".

Frampton added that probation was "obviously a lot cheaper" than a custodial sentence.

"So they're trying to change people's behaviour, try to get them on the straight and narrow and maybe get them back into work and just become a somewhat normal citizen."

Main object is 'rehabilitation'

Frampton said he got to know "some of the service users and some of the probation officers".

"Something that I noticed was the relationship that the service user actually has with the probation officer," he said. When there is a good relationship then the service user will "get the absolute most" out of it, according to Frampton. 

"I just didn't really understand what a probation officer's role was. I thought they were maybe going to be kind of old battle axes and, cracking the whip all the time, but that wasn't the case."

"Obviously, if they stepped out of line, there was repercussions as well," Frampton added. "But the main objective is to rehabilitate people, and that's what they're trying to do."

The mental health of the probation officers is also highlighted in the documentary. "What they're having to deal with and the stories they're having to hear every time," explained Frampton.

While his professional career was boxing, Frampton said he enjoys presenting. "I'm not a reporter, I'm not a journalist, so I feel like I get a little bit more out of people, and they can maybe trust me a wee bit more and share more information a little bit freely, and I'm not gonna judge them. "I just wanna hear their stories, so I'll keep doing it as long as they keep asking."

The full series of Carl Frampton: On Probation will be available on BBC iPlayer from Monday 18 May.

Words Matter

I watched both speeches and I've read a lot of reflections on them, but I think this is the best so far:-

I hadn’t planned on watching King Charles III address Congress. I assumed I’d absorb the highlights later, filtered through the usual swirl of headlines and commentary. But something made me pause, just for a moment, and in that brief glance, I found myself unexpectedly drawn in.

There was a quiet gravity to his presence, a kind of composure that didn’t demand attention so much as earn it. His words were measured, deliberate, and carried with them the weight of history without ever feeling heavy-handed. It wasn’t just the content of the speech, but the cadence, the restraint, the sense that each phrase had been considered rather than performed. Before I knew it, I wasn’t skimming, I was listening. Fully. It’s rare, in this era of noise and urgency, to encounter a moment that feels both dignified and unhurried. Whatever one’s views, there was something undeniably compelling about witnessing a speaker who understands not only the power of language, but the responsibility that comes with it.

The Architecture of Language

What struck me most watching King Charles III stand before Congress wasn’t just the content of his speech, it was the reminder of what language sounds like when it is treated with respect. Full sentences. Complete thoughts. A measured cadence that doesn’t lurch from grievance to grievance like a drunk driver weaving across lanes. It was, quite simply, the sound of someone who understands that words are not just noise, they are instruments of meaning, responsibility, and, occasionally, wisdom.

And in that moment, the contrast with Donald Trump wasn’t subtle, it was seismic.Charles spoke of alliances not as transactional leverage, but as living commitments. He invoked NATO not as a protection racket, but as a shared defense of democratic stability. He referenced Ukraine not as a bargaining chip, but as a moral obligation. And when he turned to the climate crisis, he didn’t reduce it to a punchline or a hoax, he framed it, correctly, as a systemic threat to prosperity, security, and the continuity of life itself. This is what leadership sounds like when it is informed by history rather than inflated by ego.

Meanwhile, Trump stood beside him, physically present, intellectually absent, delivering his usual slurry of half-formed thoughts, superlatives without substance, and that unmistakable whiny bloviation that has become his linguistic signature. Listening to him after Charles is like following a symphony with a kazoo solo. One man builds an argument; the other builds a grievance. One understands that words carry weight; the other uses them like confetti at a rally.

What made Charles’s remarks particularly striking was their subtlety. This wasn’t a scolding, it was something far more devastating: a polite, impeccably delivered reminder of what America used to be. When he spoke of checks and balances, rooted in the legacy of Magna Carta, he wasn’t just offering a history lesson, he was holding up a mirror. When he said, “America’s words carry weight and meaning… the actions of this great nation matter even more,” it landed less as praise and more as a challenge. A nudge, perhaps, but one delivered with the kind of elegance that makes it impossible to dismiss.

I couldn’t help but think of Barack Obama in that moment. Not because Charles is Obama, or Obama is Charles, but because both men understand the architecture of language. They know how to construct a thought, how to guide an audience, how to elevate rather than inflame. Listening to them reminds you that rhetoric, when done properly, is not manipulation, it’s illumination. It clarifies. It connects. It aspires.

Which raises the unavoidable, almost painful question: imagine the visual, the symbolic weight, the sheer intellectual oxygen of a room that included Obama, Michelle Obama, Charles, and Queen Camilla. A gathering of people who can speak, listen, and think in complete sentences, who understand that leadership is not performance art for the aggrieved, but stewardship of something larger than themselves. Instead, we get Trump and Melania Trump, a pairing that feels less like statesmanship and more like a branding exercise gone stale.

Charles called the U.S.–U.K. alliance “one of the most consequential in human history,” and he’s right. But alliances, like language, require maintenance. They require honesty, consistency, and a shared understanding of reality. You cannot sustain them with slogans, tantrums, and a worldview that reduces every relationship to a deal to be won or lost. What Charles offered in that chamber was more than diplomacy, it was a reminder. A reminder that the world is watching. A reminder that leadership still has a vocabulary, even if we’ve forgotten how to speak it. And perhaps most painfully, a reminder that somewhere along the way, we traded eloquence for noise, clarity for chaos, and principle for performance. And the silence that follows that realization?

That’s the loudest indictment of all.

Michael Jochum
Author, Not Just a Drummer: Reflections on Art, Politics, Dogs, and the Human Condition