Outlier England

Following on from Lord Timpson's lecture on Friday and his vision of how probation must develop in England, this report from a recent European conference confirms what many of us know - we're heading in the wrong direction and likely to remain an embarrassing outlier:- 

Shaping Probation’s Identity: Public Perception and the Three Rs (Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Reparation)

Introduction: A Journey 

The Probation Service in England and Wales stands at a critical juncture. With a history spanning more than a century, it has weathered waves of reform. This instability has undermined professional autonomy and blurred the service’s purpose. Is probation a social work agency, an extension of law enforcement, a welfare provider, or mechanism for managing community risk and easing prison overcrowding?

In May 2025, I represented HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) at the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) Conference on Public Perception of Probation in Antalya, Türkiye. The event underscored the urgent need to reclaim probation’s identity, not by returning to the past or inventing something entirely new, but by forging a contemporary vision grounded in rehabilitation, reintegration, collaboration, engagement, and humanity.

The Identity Crisis in Probation 

At the Conference, probation practitioners, managers, and leaders from across Europe, alongside leading academics, shared their experiences in shaping probation’s identity and services. CEP President Annie Devos (Belgium) opened with thought-provoking questions: Why do we use prisons? 

Why do we use probation? How do we respond to challenges?

Listening intently, I reflected on the origins of probation in England and Wales, established through the 1907 Probation of Offenders Act and guided by the motto “advise, assist, and befriend”. This principle remains relevant, emphasising holistic supervision that acknowledges personal, social, and circumstantial factors influencing behaviour. As Jarvis (1972) outlined, probation’s identity is embedded in its capacity to engage individuals, not merely as risks but as people needing support and second chances.

Historically, probation has been viewed as a social work agency, a characterisation still recognised by many CEP nations. However, government administrations have often rejected this framing, steering probation toward enforcement and punishment (Canton, 2024). The past two decades have witnessed a service marked by fragmentation, privatisation, and eventual reunification, developments that have weakened its identity (HMIP, 2025). Critics of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms warned these changes would undermine evidence-based practices and restrict professional development (Senior, 2013; Hylton, 2013). Indeed, the Chief Inspector of Probation later described the reforms as “irredeemably flawed” (HMIP, 2019). The unification process that followed remains “a painful process whose end state remains elusive” (Millings et al, 2025). Undoubtedly, this serves as a reminder that reforms must be collaborative, scrutinised, evidence-based based and tested.

Workshops at the Conference further highlighted the concern that probation had strayed from its rehabilitative mission (Jarvis, 1972). The emphasis on risk management has, at times, transformed Probation into a tool of punishment and control, rather than a means of rehabilitation. As Kemshall (2021) argues, risk management and rehabilitation can work in tandem to promote public safety. However, an overemphasis on public safety alone will not create the engaging, rehabilitative environment that fosters change and desistance when working with individuals on probation. Similarly, if probation is unable to develop a clear and credible identity, distinct from narratives around punishment, public safety, use of technology, cost-effectiveness, or custody alternatives, and to resist the urge to overpromise on risk management, public protection, and crime control, then it may continue to face the challenge of misrepresentation. Without a clearly defined identity, probation remains vulnerable to external pressures, limiting its autonomy and effectiveness.

Learning from Europe and Reclaiming its Voice

Conversations with ‘celebrities’ such as Gerry McNally and Professor Fergus McNeill were inspiring. Equally valuable were discussions with international colleagues including Daniel Danglades (Ministry of Justice, France), Vugar Aghayev (Ministry of Justice, Azerbaijan), and Deniz Özyörük (General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses, Türkiye). I shared insights from my journey within probation, the perseverance of supervised individuals in achieving progressive life changes, and the dedication of probation professionals (Hylton, 2013; 2014; 2024).

The conference highlighted the importance of reclaiming probation’s narrative. European nations with newer probation systems, less burdened by entrenched bureaucratic structures, demonstrated a clear vision, probation as an agent of social justice rather than a mere administrative function or penal system extension. They demonstrated success, openness to collaboration, and a firm belief that intentional dialogue can elevate probation’s visibility and autonomy and establish it as an independent entity.

In listening to the speakers explore these tensions, a key realisation emerged: probation operates within the tension between the probation of liberty and the restriction of liberty; it cannot effectively embody both (McNally, 2025). Probation would benefit from being untethered from narratives of punishment, public safety, cost-saving, and avoiding labels of ‘cheaper’, a ‘replacement’ or an ‘alternative’. In considering the ‘public perception of probation’ and the significance of probation work, the following resonated particularly.

Daniel Danglades (Ministry of Justice, France) emphasised the importance of a strong probation identity underpinned by staff training and development. He passionately described how all probation practitioners in France undergo training at a central academy, reinforcing a consistent national approach and professional ethos. Danglades (2025) also advocated for collaboration, not competition, among CEP member countries.

Dr. Andrea Matouskova (Ministry of Justice, Czech Republic) introduced probation houses; reintegration spaces based on need, not just risk. A presentation showed individuals transitioning from prison, developing life skills, and sharing their rehabilitation journeys. Engaging the local community had eased concerns about hosting these spaces, reinforcing the role of probation as a facilitator of positive change.

Gerry McNally (University College Cork, Ireland) argued the need for probation to remain independent, evidence-driven, and guided by a clear sense of purpose. He challenged probation to uphold its core values while confronting policies that undermine them. McNally (2025) encouraged exploration of diverse stakeholder perspectives, from clients and those with lived experience, to frontline practitioners, the judiciary and policymakers, to address misconceptions, influence policy, and safeguard probation’s autonomy amidst growing technological, hierarchical, and political pressures. He also posed challenging questions:

What do clients think of probation? What should probation be? A friend, an acquaintance, or an authority to be feared?

Dr. Hüseyin Şik (General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses, Türkiye) highlighted the necessity of collaboration, respect and humanity in probation work, presenting a comprehensive support network spanning release planning, youth services, spiritual guidance, employment programs, addiction and mental health support, and community-driven environmental initiatives including the planting and maintenance of one million trees (Özyörük, 2025). Türkiye’s “Year of Probation,” introduced by its Director General, Enis Yavuz Yildirim, emphasised a non-punitive philosophy and probation’s role in rehabilitation. Professor Hakan A. Yavuz (Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Türkiye) had added a reminder that while probation should not attempt to solve all social and justice problems, crises in justice can present opportunities for reform and reinvention.

The Probation Three Rs: Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Reparation 

Professor. Fergus McNeill (University of Glasgow, Scotland) powerfully argued that probation, as an “agency of justice”, must prioritise rehabilitation, reintegration, and reparation, and can apply meaningful censure without the need to be punitive. During discussions, I seized the opportunity to dub this framework the “Probation Three Rs”. 

• Rehabilitation: Recognising human capacity for change and fostering belief (and facilitating) in every individual’s ability to change. 
• Reintegration: Encouraging and enabling inclusion within society rather than isolation. 
• Reparation: Supporting individuals in taking accountability for their actions and making meaningful amends.

McNeill (2025) and McNally (2025) each reinforced the enduring claim that “probation works” (Chapman & Hough, 2001). They compellingly argued that probation centred on punishment and public safety will falter, whereas probation focused on rehabilitation and reintegration will thrive. For probation to expand its scope in supervising individuals in the community, is perhaps fundamental to the success of rehabilitation-focused approaches (Canton, 2024; Hylton, 2024). These considerations also raised critical questions:

Should probation sentences be applied universally where short custodial sentences would otherwise be imposed? Should community supervision be available postsentence and post-remand, albeit on a voluntary basis? Furthermore, should recall and enforcement functions be altogether removed from standard determinate and community sentences?

In subsequent discussions, McNeill, McNally, and others reflected on the significance of desistance and purposeful activity. For rehabilitation to be truly effective, probation must be equipped to provide immediate and priority access to essential resources, including accommodation, education, training, employment, healthcare, and addiction support; critical lifelines for individuals released from prison or serving community sentences (Aubrey & Hough, 1997). 

From Silent Service to Public Voice 

Probation, supervising over a million people across Europe, takes many forms, but it is the shared values and goals that unify the profession (Canton, 2010). Investing in practitioner development and recruitment is necessary for operational capacity and essential to cultivating creativity, autonomy, and adaptability (Raynor, 2019). Equally, access to appropriate resources essential for rehabilitation approaches will shape probation’s identity and the role of its practitioners.

To ensure probation's success, its representation must be strengthened, and its community engagement deepened. This requires amplifying diverse perspectives, incorporating insights from focus groups that shape policy, and engaging the public through “citizens’ assemblies” that drive reform (McNeill, 2025). Direct involvement from justice frontline staff, managers, academics, and individuals with lived experience is crucial, alongside collaboration with statutory and community leaders (McNally, 2025). Additionally, meaningful engagement with media platforms can play a vital role in public understanding and support for reform.

As the conference concluded, Secretary General Jana Špero Kamenjarin tasked attendees to carry forward a key takeaway. For me, it was clear: justice reform must be shaped by frontline practitioners, managers, academics and those who have successfully desisted from offending (Hylton, 2024). These voices must guide innovation, inform policy, and help redesign services. In partnership with statutory agencies, probation should be the coordinators of timely, needs-based support, and yes, maybe even plant a million trees.

Conclusion: A Vision for the Future 

The Conference demonstrated that across Europe, probation services are actively engaging communities, not just as stakeholders but as partners. The future of probation lies in evidence-based reform, practitioner development, and adequate resourcing. Practitioners and managers must be empowered to lead and challenge from within, cultivating a workforce of champions who articulate the service’s purpose with clarity and confidence. Probation must resist the urge to overpromise on crime control and risk management. Therefore, reframing public safety as a natural consequence of effective rehabilitation rather than an isolated goal.

To reclaim its core role, probation must celebrate its successes, demystify its work, and participate actively in public discourse. Ultimately, embracing a modern identity aligned with its founding ethos: advise, assist, and befriend, a quasiwelfare, quasi-justice institution built not on punishment and control, but on hope, support, and the belief in human change (Ali et al, 2025; Canton, 2024; Hylton, 2024).

Jamal Hylton 

Senior Probation Officer 

East of England Probation Region

Timpson Fails to Join the Dots

Lord Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending delivered the 27th Bill McWilliams lecture yesterday, so what did we learn? Well, he's not been a politician for long and is clearly a nice guy, but....he's a government minister and still learning what that's about and the priority has obviously been dealing with the prison crisis, not the Probation Service one. 

He clearly cares about the Probation Service, but how much does he really know about it and understand its distinctive ethos? From the many incongruities in his address he is aware of the issues, but so far is either unwilling or unable to address them.  

• He reminded us that the first probation officers were volunteers - wags might be tempted to say on current pay trajectory, probation staff will in effect be volunteers soon.
• Advise Assist and Befriend got a mention, but a modern service was about Assess Protect and Change.
• He has a somewhat touching belief in technology being the answer to Probation's woes in the vain hope that the 70/30 split in wasted time spent on futile admin can be reversed with more time to spend with clients and 'having a cup of tea' with them.
• Although he stressed "this is a people business", he is clearly enamoured by technology and keen to spend much of the allocated £700 million on AI recording stuff. He doesn't seem to understand how that would fundamentally affect the nature of the inter-action.
• Described probation as "the quiet engine of our Justice System".despite much evidence to suggest it's utterly broken.
• He said "probation was community based working with the judiciary" and also "Prisons and Probation are two sides of the same coin" NO THEY'RE EFFING NOT!
• He said "it can't all be top down, it can't be one size fits all" seemingly to forget probation is part of a Civil Service command and control structure.
• He batted away suggestions that the Civil Service might not be the best structural model for the type of staff required to deliver probation, preferring to highlight how important leadership was instead!
• He also referred more than once to the differences between geographical communities. London, Cambridge and Cumbria (I think) and therefore service delivery being very different. He is clearly unable to spot the incongruity here.
• He ducked the pay question saying "we don't do it for the money" and brushed it off as "they are talking to the unions". Not rewarding the profession appropriately is not a mark of investing of course.
• He cited trauma, addiction and mental health as drivers of crime, but made no mention of poverty.
• He clearly rates HMI inspector Martin Jones (who regularly bangs on about 'localism') and cited him in efforts to not talk about Kim Thornden-Edwards and probation having invisible leadership and an effective voice.
• He acknowledged the havoc caused by Chris Grayling and asserted it takes 5 years to get a damaged organisation back into good shape. That time's nearly up, but in crisis.
• When asked about foreign nationals in prison, having acknowledged there were 10,500, he chose to highlight the plight of female FNO's and how they were 'all victims'. He was delighted that social workers were being employed in prisons to assist them, having earlier avoided the notion of a return to social work training being appropriate for probation officers.
• In pondering in what circumstances a Probation Officer might be sacked, he clearly recognised how risk-averse the whole structure had become and opined that 'a bit more commonsense' might be needed. Touching, given that we are part of a Civil Service command and control structure.
• He was impressed with the Manchester model of partnership working and hoped for a bigger role for the Third Sector, but is not yet willing to concede the present shotgun marriage to HM Prison Service is part of the problem.
• We had the usual 'recruiting more staff' mantra, but he didn't seem that alarmed at rentention rates. He was concerned at sickness levels, but didn't think caseloads of 35 were a problem.
• Despite being given the opportunity posed by a question of how the workload might be reduced, there was no mention of ditching the ridiculous 'supervision' of the under 12mths custody cohort.
• Apparently he's meeting representatives from Wales on Monday, so hopefully the notions of a different probation model will be enthusiastically advanced!

Commended

I note that all the commended essays for the Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize 2025 have now been published, including this by Ben Entwistle:-

A strong passion - professional identity in Probation

A friend told me of a Probation client who wanted to hand himself in to the Police over an unresolved criminal matter. The Probation Officer contacted the Prosecution and arranged to accompany his client to the Police Station. On the day, the PO was dressed for work, the client in a suit and tie. On arrival the Police tried to arrest the Probation Officer.

This incident, though amusing in one sense, makes a serious point about notions of professionalism. Fulfilling a commonly-held stereotype about what a professional looks like and actually being one are (or certainly should be!) quite different things. However smart, expensive and executive-looking one’s attire, the essence of professionalism cannot simply reside in clothing. The most professional looking person may be the least competent or, worse, may be cynically passing themselves off as someone they are not for dishonest ends.

At its simplest, a professional is someone paid for the work they do. There is overlap with the idea that, to merit this pay, one must work to agreed standards of competence, knowledge, expertise and conduct. Wikipedia says: “Professionalism is a set of standards that an individual is expected to adhere to in a workplace in order to appear serious, uniform or respectful. What constitutes professionalism is hotly debated and varies from workplace to workplace and between cultures.” The use of the word ‘appear’ here is interesting; again we have the risk of presentation being deceptive. The dictionary definition of ‘profess’ makes this concrete, noting the commonest use of the word is to refer to someone claiming something untrue about themselves. Another idea linked to the concept of professional conduct is that this must be ethical and of a high standard.

With this we are coming close to what professionalism might best mean in Probation. Because of the nature of Probation work, it seems indisputable that the base-line for a professional identity must be truthfulness, honesty, compassion and a passion for justice and right over wrong. Nothing seems more likely to undermine work done to help those guilty of offences to change their behaviour and lives, than the “do what I say not what I do” institutional hypocrisy which has lately been exposed with such devastating impact in bodies like the Police and the Church. I do not mean that Probation Staff must be morally perfect and without error; that would be equally unhelpful. But integrity in this endeavour must encompass the courage to be honest about one’s flaws and failings. When we talk about the professional’s ‘use of self’ in the task of building a constructive, open and mutually respectful relationship, this is surely one of the aspects we mean. Over-aweing someone with personal, moral purity is unlikely to help them grow.

So we have a combination of factors: a level of knowledge, expertise and experience with regard to practice; the job itself; and a value-base, an ethics of engagement rooted in truthfulness, justice and a hopefulness about the human capacity for growth and change. This should not negate the capacity to challenge harmful and dishonest behaviour but it should equally not surrender to crude, judgemental stereotypes or an “us and them” prescriptiveness.

My own view (and this is a personal opinion, though one shared by many people and expressed in a significant body of Probation literature) is that when Probation was removed from a ‘social work’ ethos and forced into a ‘criminal justice, punishment in the community’ ideology, this essential value-base was diluted and ultimately lost. This went hand in hand with, and was accelerated by, the imposition of computer technology which automated the work into matrices of risk-assessment, data-collection, actuarial orthodoxies and prescriptive formulae for intervention. The illusion was established and assiduously reinforced that what was (and should be) an essentially human and interactive profession, could in fact be an ‘exact science’ with answers, solutions and evidence-based outcomes. By the time I retired it seemed to me the notion of professionalism in Probation had become something I could not recognise, utterly at odds with the ethics and values I was trained in and first knew. The measure of the new professional appeared to reside in: speed of typing; mastery of IT systems; effortless assimilation of lists of arcane acronyms; a facility with statistics; the capacity to navigate with ease and alacrity between different algorithms and matrices; and a narrow view of ‘offenders’ that was able to slot them swiftly into one category of delinquent risk or another.

The orthodoxy of risk-assessment seems posited on the conviction that past-behaviour is self-fulfilling and it is unlikely the subject will do anything different, despite our original mission having been wedded to the belief in change. I finished in a ‘report-writing team’ and was constantly being told my reports were too long, that I was taking too much time over them and this is why I was feeling so stressed, that my interviews with clients were too protracted and that Judges really couldn’t be bothered to read all the unnecessary details I was including.

In conclusion, I don’t believe true professionalism can be fully restored to Probation until the ethical and human are returned to its heart; until the 24/7 feeding of the machine is downgraded in favour of personal contact; until OASYS is scrapped; and until, in Ruth Wilkes’ formulation, an ‘instrumental morality’ is replaced with an ‘expressive’ one. This hotly debated issue of professionalism will not go away through being ignored. In The Guardian piece “Plan for less-qualified probation staff to oversee sex-offenders.” And in the current edition of “Professional Social Work” (March/April 2025), in a piece about AI: “This raises the question of whether existing human rights’ frameworks are fit for purpose in the age of AI. Is there a need for new human rights, such as the right to a human, rather than a machine decision?”

I was drawn to Probation by the depth and seriousness of its core task, its humane compassion, its grappling with tensions between justice and punishment, right and wrong, and with concepts of the better life. I feel this ontological seriousness has been sacrificed to the speed and ease of a tick-box mentality. As Mervyn Peake wrote: “The vastest things are those we may not learn/we are not taught to die nor to be born/nor how to burn with love/How pitiful is our enforced return/to those small things we are the masters of.”

Ben Entwhistle

The Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize is annual competition, co-hosted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and Napo, that honours the legacy of Mike Guilfoyle. Mike was a dedicated probation officer and active Napo member, and this competition aims to encourage reflections on all that is valuable and important in probation. This year’s essay question was What does professionalism mean in probation?

Highly Commended

I note that Jamal Hylton was awarded Highly Commended in the 2025 Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize and is well worth reading:-

This essay explores the concept of professionalism in probation, drawing on my experiences as a Probation Officer and Senior Probation Officer, as well as seminal works, to highlight its core attributes and practical application.

The Origins of Professionalism

Professionalism in probation cannot be explored without referencing the phrase “advise, assist, and befriend”. This principle has been integral to the Probation Service since its establishment and was codified in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907. This set out the responsibilities of probation officers in working with individuals under supervision, reflecting a commitment to rehabilitation through supportive relationships aimed at facilitating positive change. This emphasised a holistic approach to addressing offending behaviour, recognising the personal and social factors that contribute to offending behaviour, ensuring that interventions and supervisory approaches are not solely punitive but also rehabilitative.

Commitment to Desistance

As a Probation Officer I have found that changing behaviour is rarely linear, that setbacks occur, and motivation fluctuates. The focus is to keep the individual moving forward on their journey, reinforcing the collaborative nature of probation supervision and support. A cornerstone of professionalism in probation is fostering desistance, the process by which individuals cease offending. This requires a person-centred approach, acknowledging the complexities of behavioural change and the unique journeys of those under supervision.

In this context, professionalism involves working with individuals to maintain progress, identifying their needs, strengths, aspirations, and opportunities, and using these to foster change. The supervisory relationship is built on the belief in every individual has the potential to change, desist from offending and achieve their goals, also described by Weaver and Weaver. Practitioners therefore balance empathy and non-judgmental support with accountability, offering guidance and access to resources while ensuring individuals take responsibility for their progress. This encapsulates the nuanced nature of professionalism in probation, aligning with the ethos of ‘advise, assist, and befriend’.

Interventions, Supervision, and Practitioner Development

Probation practice is underpinned by a range of techniques, including motivational interviewing, relationship building, counselling, and therapeutic approaches. The presence of skilled and experienced practitioners is invaluable, and within supervisory settings enables the delivery of targeted interventions based on need and risk assessments. Research into effective practice highlights the importance of programmes and structured interventions, which rely on knowledge and expertise for successful implementation, as outlined by Chapman and Hough.

In drawing attention to the importance of supervisory practices, I’ve shared examples of experiences working in supervisory settings, exploring what can be achieved in supporting individuals in reducing reoffending. The Skills for Effective Engagement Development (SEED) training and SEED model concluded that effective supervisory practices require balancing risk management, individual needs, and engagement strategies, alongside building open, trusting, and consistent professional relationships. Professionalism is also demonstrated when practitioners adapt their approaches, taking cultural and social contexts into account. This fosters communication and enables the acceptance of support, such as access to housing, employment, addiction and mental health services.

Equally, professionalism requires reflective practice, self-awareness, and ongoing learning. As probation evolves, practitioners must stay informed about emerging research and practices. Critics of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, including the late Paul Senior and even myself, argued that those changes jeopardised evidence-based practices and hindered professional development. Therefore, maintaining professionalism means preserving skills and innovation, and serves as a reminder of the need to preserve the integrity of probation practice, training and development.

Values, Ethics, and Multi-Agency Collaboration

Ethical practice is central to professionalism in probation. The transformative potential of probation work necessitates ethical decision-making that is transparent, accountable, and informed by legal and policy frameworks. Practitioners navigate a delicate balance in assessing past behaviour as a predictor of future behaviour, therefore enabling decisions to reduce reoffending and protect victims, while also recognising current behaviour and future potential.

Collaboration is another key component of professionalism and probation practitioners work effectively within multi-agency partnerships, drawing on the expertise of police, mental health, housing, and addiction support services, as outlined by the late Mike Guilfoyle. This holistic approach ensures individuals receive comprehensive support, and successful joint initiatives strengthen probation’s capacity to support individuals. These partnerships reinforce the notion that the “assist” component extends beyond individual roles or locations, requiring the ability to work effectively within the broader justice system and the wider community, as outlined in the Process evaluation of the Newham Y2A Hub and by myself writing on probation and community supervision.

Resilience and Emotional Intelligence

Probation practitioners are trained to address complex, sometimes deeply entrenched issues, equipping clients with genuine opportunities to reintegrate into society. This work can be challenging, requiring resilience and emotional intelligence to manage caseloads, exposure to trauma, and public scrutiny, as an inspection of the Probation Service suggests. Professionalism demands the ability to maintain composure, self-awareness, and empathy in the face of these pressures. Working with individuals who have experienced trauma, marginalisation, and adversity takes an emotional toll, emphasising the importance of self-care, peer support, and an organisational culture that prioritises staff well-being. Practitioners also navigate the tension between professional detachment and meaningful engagement, ensuring they remain effective while safeguarding their own wellbeing.

The Future of Probation

The enduring principles of “advise, assist, and befriend” remain at the heart of professionalism in probation, underscoring the importance of supportive relationships, skilled interventions, and ethical practice. Professionalism in this field is multifaceted, requiring a blend of technical expertise, collaboration, resilience, and a commitment to fostering desistance and positive change. Probation practitioners must balance empathy with accountability, flexibility with consistency, and personal well-being with professional responsibility. In doing so, they contribute not only to individual rehabilitation but also to broader goals of justice and community safety.

Looking ahead, the Probation Service must continue to evolve while staying true to its core ethos. Maintaining professionalism means advocating for evidence-based reforms, investing in practitioner development, and ensuring adequate resources to support both individuals under supervision and those who supervise them. By upholding these principles, the Probation Service can adapt to changing demands while remaining a force for rehabilitation and social justice.

Jamal Hylton

Author’s note: This essay is dedicated to the memory of Alison Thornton, a Probation Officer of outstanding professionalism

The Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize is annual competition, co-hosted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and Napo, that honours the legacy of Mike Guilfoyle. Mike was a dedicated probation officer and active Napo member, and this competition aims to encourage reflections on all that is valuable and important in probation. This year’s essay question was What does professionalism mean in probation?

A Very Good Question

As usual, regular reader and prolific commentator 'Getafix  hits the nail on the head here and I know I'll be pondering all day to try and come up with an answer:-

Just how do you square the notion of professionalism in probation when you believe that the whole ethos is wrong? I've struggled with it all day, and I still can't find an answer. Is it even possible for 'professionalism' to exist in today's model of probation?

For sure, there's people that are enthusiastic and good at their job. They can dot all the I's and cross all the T's. They can keep all their files up to date, and leave their desks clean and tidy at night. But it's all prescribed. When do they get the opportunity to make a difference? Surely for most joining the service, making a difference was the original attraction to the service? If the service isn't about making a difference then do we really need it?

As I say, I've struggled all day with the concept of professionalism in probation. I've considered fundamental questions like purpose, ethos and identity, and now I'm going to sleep with another fundamental question on my mind:- "What makes a good probation officer?"

Professionalism

Back on 25th June I posted the following in response to several commentators quite rightly noting my lack of input to the blog and it effectively being on autopilot:-

 "Life gets in the way and I've just got back from the south of France. Just before I set off my latest PET scan confirmed that I remain free of disease and hence thankfully in remission. I will always be eternally grateful for an NHS. I try to publish all contributions including those of differing viewpoints of course, but not those that are injudiciously critical of the Napo General Secretary or other staff. The standard of contributions has waned over recent years, no doubt reflecting the demographic changes within the Service and its general descent into HMPPS comand and control. The new government and Justice Secretary hasn't helped and to be honest I'm worn out by it all I suppose. Accepting defeat is not a pleasant or easy thing to do, especially of something you feel passionate about. Virgin having lost my email account hasn't helped and so I may well have lost potential Guest Blog pieces. People can still contact me via Twitter though. To conclude, I will endeavour to keep going as long as there are people willing to read and contribute. Thanks go to anyone who still wants to come along."

Well, another couple of weeks have gone by and you've all kept the show on the road, something I'm both deeply thankful for and impressed by. It's clear that, despite everything, the probation ethos remains and I feel duty-bound to try and give the blog the attention it deserves.  .

--oo00oo--

The Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize is an annual competition, co-hosted by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies and Napo, that honours the legacy of Mike Guilfoyle. Mike was a dedicated probation officer and active Napo member, and this competition aims to encourage reflections on all that is valuable and important in probation. This year’s essay question was What does professionalism mean in probation? Anne Burrell is the winner of the 2025 Mike Guilfoyle Essay Prize:-

Reflections on the meanings of professionalism in probation practice

It’s the summer of 1974. I am still a teenager, and an undergraduate at the University of Nottingham, studying for a degree in Applied Social Studies. This involves mandatory practice placements during the long summer vacations.

The final summer of my course, I was placed at a Probation Office in Birmingham, which served a wide and diverse area, including Handsworth - later to become infamous as a result of riots; a huge housing estate, which generated serious and organised crime (although not recognised as such at that time); and locations of all kinds in between. This was the experience which confirmed to me that I had found my tribe; and which has shaped a lifelong career. It also proved pivotal in opening my eyes to the world of criminal justice - including structural and institutional inequalities, notably the effects of institutional racism, which permeated all levels of the system (and which was a factor in riots during my time working there, as well as subsequently); and the ways in which structural inequalities play out in the lives of people brought before the courts.

I qualified as a Probation Officer in 1977, having achieved a Certificate of Qualification in Social Work - the then recognised qualification for probation. Shortly after, Home Office approval for the particular course which I undertook was withdrawn for probation practice; much later still, in 1998, probation training became separated from social work, replaced by the Diploma in Probation Studies, a qualification focused more on ‘offender management,’ and less on rehabilitation and reform.

Research over time suggests that these changes in policy and practice generated a perceived diminution in the professional role. Nevertheless, I don’t think that considerations of professionalism concerned me a great deal during my early career as a practitioner. Maybe it was the social work qualification which implicitly conferred a sense of professionalism. Maybe it was the status of being a ‘servant of the courts.’ Although the paternalistic approach of some magistrates and judges rankled at times, it nonetheless felt that probation was a respected and valued profession in the judicial setting, and more widely. Mainly, and in retrospect, it seems likely that the role was able to meet the generally accepted criteria for being a profession – that the practitioner holds specialised knowledge, skills and expertise; and has agency and autonomy over their work.

In the late 1980’s, I left probation for a time, to work in an education setting. Whilst enjoyable, I never felt at home in the way that I had as a probation practitioner. I returned to probation in 2003, when the National Probation Service for England and Wales had not long been established (2001). I didn’t realise until later that this organisational change meant that all of probation’s funding was centrally allocated by the Home Office – a precursor to the current location of the Service in the Civil Service. I was aware of an exodus of qualified and experienced staff, largely related to significant changes in probation practice, particularly the implementation of National Standards, and the associated performance measures which came into being. For many longstanding practitioners, these factors represented a fundamental shift in the culture of The Probation Service which proved untenable for their practice.

But returning from a teaching setting, I still considered that I retained considerable autonomy in my practice, and could exercise what Mawby and Worrall describe as ‘responsible creativity,’ meaning, a context in which ‘situations that verge on the edge of chaos, where things might just fall apart, professional skills are tested to keep things together’ (emphasis mine). This was a rewarding period, in a supportive team of like-minded practitioners, with an appropriate level of challenge in the work, without feeling overwhelmed by it.

All these considerations were blown out of the water by the Transforming Rehabilitation organisational restructure. This policy initiative is now recognised as a significant trauma for individual staff and for the organisation as a whole. Personally, this sense of displacement, and of loss, was not solely related to the changes of location, of team and of managers, but also since I held a split job role, and ended up working for the National Probation Service simultaneously with being employed by a privatised Community Rehabilitation Company. This situation was not sustainable, both for practical reasons, and also since it felt that my professional identity was not just being diminished, but stifled out of existence. And that, correspondingly, the principles and ethos of probation work were similarly being demolished wholesale.

I’m now working on a PhD investigating professionalism in probation, in an effort to analyse and understand what has happened to the Probation Service, and the significance of professional identity to practitioners. Amongst other things, I’ve learned that professionalism in probation can refer to a set of values which inform practice, which have remained remarkably resilient over time, and which Garland refers to as ‘the pursuit of values such as justice, tolerance, decency, humanity and civility.’ Also, that these values shape professional practice, in approaches which are humane, non-judgemental, and which recognise the impact of the structural inequalities which I first encountered as a student in Birmingham.

I retired from Probation at the end of January 2025. This was the right time to do so - although still committed to the work, the sense of dissonance at location within the Civil Service felt increasingly problematic, in terms of the constraints on what I perceive to be the professional role in probation, replaced with increased emphasis on targets and performance figures. I considered that I was losing my own sense of professional purpose and meaning – and that this reflected similar losses in the organisation itself.

Mawby and Worrall describe the Probation Service as an ‘honourable profession.’ Yet the value of probation work – and, specifically, the value of its professionalism – seems to be increasingly obscured. The strength of probation practice comes from the people doing the job, conducting themselves as professionals, with commitment and humanity – qualities which characterise the life and work of Mike Guilfoyle, who was himself an honourable man and professional practitioner, who sought to uphold those values in The Probation Service, and which must shape its future.

Anne Burrell

Author’s note: I was aware of Mike and his influence over my own lengthy period as a practitioner and as a NAPO member – especially at AGM time! In the autumn of 2020, I started work on a PhD, investigating professionalism in probation work. Mike got to know of this, and contacted me to talk about it. So, during one of the lockdowns in late 2020/early 2021, we had a very convivial meeting via TEAMS. Mike was interested, supportive, full of knowledge and concern, and, above all, kind. I hope that this essay does some small justice to him and to his values.

Why Do Probation Officers Leave?

Once again warm thanks go to star contributor 'Getafix for pointing us in the direction of a recent piece of research by the Howard League:-

No Choice But to Leave’: Understanding Voluntary Resignations Amongst Probation Staff in England and Wales

It's a lengthy document worthy of reading in full, but as is often the case, it's the testimony that tells the story, so I've selected the following:-  

ABSTRACT

Probation staff attrition in England and Wales has been a cause for concern, yet there is limited research exploring why probation staff choose to leave. Utilising Walker, Annison and Beckett's ‘workplace harm’, and Robinson's ‘post-traumatic organisation’, this research addresses this gap through a survey (n = 47) and interviews (n = 4) with staff who have left the service. Themes identified were (1) identity and values, (2) emotional impact of the job and (3) organisational climate. The possibility of a return to the service is also explored, as well as implications for the organisation and retention of staff.

5 Discussion

The analysis of the qualitative responses within the open-ended survey data and interviews identified three core themes; values and identity, emotional impact of the job and organisational climate. In drawing out the themes from the data, the authors recognise parallels to literature related to emotional labour, workplace harm and organisational trauma. Thus, the process of analysis draws on this mirroring and considers the implications for the service, and for those considering a return to practice.

5.1 Theme 1: Values and Identity

As reflected in the academic literature on probation officer values and identity (Deering and Feilzer 2019; Mawby and Worrall 2013; Tidmarsh 2020), the participant responses demonstrated a strong work ethic and desire for practitioners to meet the needs of people on probation. Similar to findings from Cook et al. (2022) exploring social worker retention, being a practitioner was a defining characteristic of who they were. This was not simply a job, but rather, probation work and being a probation officer, was a core part of their identity. This was something that they took to future roles, as this interview participant describes:

But it definitely just still feels like I'm kind of part of that world. And definitely yes, part of my identity. I talk to people in my new role, and don't go in and say I was a Probation officer and talk about it, but it's kind of the experiences and the reflections that I have from it, it definitely forms part of me. (Anne, 03)

Further, being a probation officer permeated aspects of not just professional but personal development and growth:

I grew up in the service getting to know not only the service users I worked with, but of different agencies all whilst developing a wealth of skills I didn't know I had. I grew into the adult I am now with a strong set of professional and personal values underpinned by integrity and a belief that people deserve second chances… (Survey, 46)

The relational aspect of the work, with supervisory relationships built on trust (Dominey 2019), and the ability to overcome barriers to the therapeutic alliance and successful rehabilitation, were seen as core components of practice, bringing with it a sense of pride:

And that's, that's what I felt my forte was. I used to get it wrong a lot. But then to rebuild that professional working relationship with somebody, so we could get back on track again was what I used to pride myself in. (Ellie, 01)

This probation identity also featured as a factor linked to some participants’ ambivalence when making the decision to leave the service, with the commitment to the work evident:

Because I love the job Because I'm a great PO Because I'm passionate about protecting the public. (Survey, 17)

Of particular note, the probation identity extended beyond that of the individual to the identity shared with others, and similar to the ‘policing family’ (Charman 2024), comradery within teams and the sense of a shared purpose were reflected within the responses:

Loyalty-probation tribe identity. (Survey, 01)
Almost without exception, the staff are wonderful, talented, motivated professionals who give their best every day despite the system. I miss working with the clients, for the moments of humour as well as the slow, zigzagging process of positive change. (Survey, 24)

The emphasis on the importance of connections with colleagues as a means of coping with the emotional burden of the role can be seen in the literature (Phillips 2022) and may provide some further explanation for the significance of this shared identity and experience for participants. This strong identity and work ethic did, however, bring challenges to the role in the face of organisational changes that has seen tensions arise between practice and policy (Deering and Feilzer 2019). The moral distress (Mänttäri-van der Kuip 2020) created through the misalignment between practitioner core values and the perception of the changing organisational priorities was observed:

I felt that the organisation has changed to an extent that was no longer compatible with my personal beliefs and professional ethics. I came into the service to advise, assist and befriend but became a part of the system of oppression and focussed upon enforcement and compliance. (Survey, 08)

For those whose values and experience reflected an earlier social work ethos of the service, threats to their identity (Charman and Tyson 2023) emerged, with the ‘loss of valued aspects of professional identity’ (Conroy and O'Leary-Kelly 2014, 67) caused by changes in occupational structure which left them feeling devalued and disconnected from the organisation:

And I think that culture really permeates because you've got on the ground quite a lot of you know, dinosaur probation officers, maybe, including myself, that have been there a long time, but genuinely have a passion for what you're doing, which isn't actually valued anymore, because that doesn't achieve any goals for anyone. (Christine, 02)

For some, it was this change in value-base and identity of the organisation that was the catalyst for leaving the service, reflecting a sub-theme of ‘process over people’, where, akin to Coley's (2020) discussion, the perception was that probation leadership placed greater emphasis on performance management than relational work:

It felt increasingly that the aspects of the jo[b] that “oxygenated” me were being overwhelmed by the “carbon dioxide” of greater prescription, meaningless targets and Service preoccupation with process over content and engagement with core issues (principally, the clients!). (Survey, 30)

Furthermore, there was a notion from some respondents that this focus on process over people had led to a two-tier approach to the job, creating a divide between those who engaged with the process and those who engaged with people on probation, with the service failing to reflect the value of the latter:

I knew colleagues who did nothing at all, as long as they put crap in the computer. Yeah. They did nothing with the offenders. Someone like me who's crap at your IT but was great with your offenders, they were not interested. (Shelly, 04)

Of note, whilst the impact of TR is undisputed, the responses reflected a sense that the nature of the work, and what probation represented, had changed over a time that predated the TR reforms:

The first ten years were fabulous. The second ten years were tolerable. The last ten years were appalling. (Survey, 08)

The nature and pace of change are discussed further in the following theme; however, the structural changes to the probation service had a significant impact on practitioners' sense of identity. In discussing the rebranding of probation to ‘One HMPPS’ and central control under the civil service, Carr (2022) reflects on the need for probation voices to be heard. Participant responses highlighted this impact on probation identity and the issues experienced through the structural changes and perceived competing values:

But I think the problem is that probation and prison are two very different things. And, you know, when you come under the umbrella of HMPPS, it doesn't really identify that it is a very different beast than the prison service really. (Ellie, 01)

The division of the service into NPS and CRC was a seismic mis-step, but I felt there was enough of a kernel of ‘real’ probation work within the CRCs and we found a way to work together effectively. The reunification – or, rather, the forced absorption of the CRCs into the centralised, civil service NPS, was for me a highly destructive move that has lost the soul of probation work. (Survey, 24)

The perceived changing focus on probation values and the relentless organisational changes as cited by participants can be seen as attacks to probation identity and thus further examples of workplace harm. In terms of recruitment and retention, the findings highlight the strength of feeling and identity that staff held in the organisation, which could explain how staff have continued to work in difficult environments and sought to overcome and reconcile tensions between their personal and organisational values.

5.2 Theme 2: Emotional Impact of the Job

The emotional impact of the job is, perhaps, an unsurprising theme within the research findings given the evidence-base on emotional labour within probation literature (Phillips et al. 2020; Westaby et al. 2020), and the reports of staff experiences post-TR (Carr 2023; Tidmarsh 2020). However, the extent of the impact of this emotional harm highlighted within the findings should not be understated. The high workload within the organisation was frequently cited within the participant responses, and this went beyond a focus on the number of cases being held as can be seen in this example, when asked to describe their time working as a probation officer (12), one participant commented:

Horrific. I hadn't realised until I left how unhealthy and damaging the culture was/is. Excessive self-sacrifice is expected. The more skilled you are in the role the more complex and demanding work you are given, with no consideration to the psychological impact of such work at those volumes. (Survey, 11)

The impact of the role could be seen in both emotional and physical outcomes for the participants after leaving, as this participant highlighted when responding to the same question:

Mixed because I loved my colleagues but [it was] very stressful and I resented working really long hours to meet deadlines. Felt OASys deadlines had to be prioritised over one to one work. I was often physically unwell and since leaving I'm rarely unwell. I've linked it to the daily stress I experienced at time. (Survey, 22)

As Mawby and Worrall (2013) note ‘probation workers seek meaningful work and achieve job satisfaction through emotional labour’ (352), but it is these very values that can make staff vulnerable to burnout and the emotional toll of the work being undertaken (Tidmarsh 2020). A deterioration in well-being over time as the job, and expectations, changed could be seen within the responses:

Loved the first 12 yrs and would have worked there for free. Loathed the last 4 yrs – Depressing, stressful, no hope for a better future, no job satisfaction, needed to be a jack of all trades, too stretched to do anything properly. (Survey, 42)

Whilst the accounts of individual experiences within the service painted a picture of the high levels of stress that participants were experiencing, and the subsequent impact of this on emotional and physical well-being, the responses from participants when asked what the positive aspects of leaving the probation service had been (16) highlighted these effects more starkly. Responses included reflections on work–life balance, opportunities for flexible working, improved emotional well-being and a renewed sense of self and confidence. Aligned with well-being was the references made to sleep, with participants reflecting on how this had been impacted when in role, as can be seen in the responses from these two participants:

Peace of mind Time to sleep Little to no stress Gone is the Sunday night nausea and insomnia Gone is the underlying feeling that at any moment it's all going to implode and take me with it. (Survey, 02)

I feel like a weight has been lifted. I no longer spend Sunday nights worried about what I will face on Monday morning, or debating internally whether I should spend some of my precious Saturday catching up on absurd paperwork. (Survey, 24)

This response sums up the weight of what they left behind and the impact on their current well-being in a single, yet telling, word:

Rest. (Survey, 09)

These responses resonate with the earlier work of Walker et al. (2019), highlighting the scale of the impact on staff, and demonstrate the need for the service to be responsive to the needs of staff members at all levels of the service. As can be seen in the work of Millings et al. (2023), probation leaders are not immune to these challenges. It is well established that probation work is rooted in relationships (Tidmarsh 2020; Westaby et al. 2020), and Treisman (2018) argues that for organisations to be safe and trauma-informed, there needs to be a focus on the relational needs of staff members, promoting safety and connection.

The relentless and excessive nature of communication leading to change fatigue (Robinson and Burnett 2007) was also reflected in the responses, demonstrating the ‘pervasive and equally damaging form of systemic work-based harm’ (Walker et al. 2019) impact on emotional well-being and the exacerbation of the outcomes of the already demanding role:

Changes…and being bombarded with Teams/info. (Survey, 035)

…Unification was a huge challenge and left me exhausted and disillusioned. (Survey, 01)

The general concerns about ‘getting things wrong’, through either personal experiences or seeing the experiences of colleagues, presented an additional emotional tension within the role. These concerns were set against the backdrop of high profile serious further offences, such as Joseph McCann and Damien Bendall where probation failures were highlighted by HMIP reviews (2020a, 2023b) and amplified by media reports (Pidd 2023). As illustrated in the reviews and HMIP's thematic on probation recall culture (2020b), participants reflected legitimate concerns around internal blame cultures and accountability, with a fear of making mistakes, especially with the context of high workloads and inexperienced staff:

anytime anything went wrong that involve[d] someone on your caseload you were personally blamed and provided no support. Anytime I heard of a killing on the news I would panic feel anxious and eagerly search for their name to ensure that it was not a case known to me. (Survey, 43)

Treisman's (2018) work on organisational trauma can be well applied to probation work, given the emotional impact of the job, organisational restructuring, resource issues and ongoing scrutiny in the form of inspections and case reviews. Treisman (2018) highlights that there are higher risks of staff burnout in these organisations and also ‘can lead to an organisation itself becoming traumatised, unhealthy and distressed’ (Treisman 2018, 23).

When dealing with the emotional pressures of the job, it can be seen that this spilled into the private and family lives of individuals. The impact on others was also a sub-theme identified; with many respondents having caring responsibilities of some form, that they felt were affected:

Because it certainly impacted on my family and my relationships, not negatively but it did impact on them to the extent you have to say I'm sorry, but I can't deal with that. I just need to, I need to debrief because I've had a bad day. I just need to sit quietly for 5 minutes and have a cup of tea before I deal with that. Particularly if you've got children around. It's, you know, cutting yourself off, it's difficult. (Ellie, 01)

This is reflected in Phillips et al.’s (2021) paper exploring probation staff experiences of changes to working practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is important to note that whilst we are no longer in the midst of the pandemic, the need to adapt working practices during this time has led to ongoing changes in working practices. Whilst offering the potential for some greater flexibility, responses from participants reflected how changes to remote working practices also have the potential to blur professional and homelife boundaries (‘work–life spillover’; Phillips et al. 2021), as well as increasing perceptions of accessibility of staff outside of core working hours, and increased feelings of scrutiny. Furthermore, the absence of, and need for, appropriate psychological support to reflect the make-up of caseloads was identified in a number of responses:

Corrosive impact of working with sex offenders/those who perpetrate violence against women without appropriate psychological support. (Survey, 11).

The sub-themes identified demonstrate that the emotional needs for practitioners are multi-faceted, and this provides an opportunity for the organisation to be responsive to the cumulative workplace harms that practitioners experience.

5.3 Theme 3: Organisational Climate

Whilst organisational developments and the emotional impact of the job were core themes in the findings, a separate theme of ‘organisational climate’ was also identified which could be seen to exacerbate these issues, as well creating additional challenges for staff members. This also drew on the perceptions of leaders within the organisation.

5.3.1 Organisational Tensions

A number of tensions could be identified within the participant responses. For example, the following quote highlights the feeling that changes were being directed by individuals who did not have an understanding of the job:

And then of course the travel stopped then TR happened, the split happened which was very divisive, and we became civil servants, and then this overwhelming IT tsunami really, hit us. From people who really don't understand. If you're going to manage risk, you need to ask a lot of questions and you need to spend time. It isn't a tick box thing. (Ellie, 01)

For some of the participants, there was a distinct view about new managers (from both the CRCs and NPS), with the notion that they needed to ‘earn their stripes’ evident in some of the responses, as well as some suspicion about the credentials of staff who had previously being part of the CRCs. This may be representative of the organisational turmoil that has been experienced, whilst demonstrating the difficulties in embedding collegiality following unification, reflecting the findings of Millings et al. (2023) in the merging of perceived different probation service identities.

Within this theme, there was variation in the experiences as to the extent staff felt they had received support from different levels of the organisation; with concerns around the ‘top-down’ approach to structural changes:

… I thought my entire career would be with the service, navigating various specialisms or management roles as time went on. Instead the service has slowly and criminally been pushed beyond breaking point, chronic staffing issues resulting in dangerous mismanagement of people's lives both staff and service user alike. (survey, 46)

There was a sense that responses to the pandemic from some managers meant there was a feeling that colleagues were not ‘in this together’ and that the expectations placed upon practitioners were unrealistic. Within the responses, there were accounts of instances of abuse of power presented from some managers, as can be seen in the quote below about reasons for leaving:

Bullying, victimisation, harassment sexist behaviour from male manager. (Survey, 43)

Significant abuse of power was also reported within one of the interviews, and the quote below provides some insight into this individual's experiences within the team:

When exploring relationships: It was I mean, I worked harder than a lot of colleagues, but I knew what it meant to be a good officer. As a team, brilliant, supported, I mean I had my odd moments, experienced a bit of racism and stuff, but overall great experience. (Shelly, 04)

Here, the participant spoke quite candidly, almost casually, about their experiences of racism within the role. Within the responses, some reference was made to participants experiencing bullying, sexism and racism, reflecting issues faced by minority ethnic staff as illustrated in HMIP's Race equality in probation follow-up thematic (2023c). Whilst these were generally not presented as specific reasons for leaving, they provide further examples of workplace harm that these individuals had endured in their time in the service.

However, whilst there are concerning accounts within the responses it is important to balance this with an awareness of the similar pressures and tensions experienced by line managers, particularly in relation to organisational challenges. The HMIP thematic on The role of the senior probation officer (SPO) and management oversight in the Probation Service (2024) highlighted the broad span of workload duties detracting SPOs from providing effective support to practitioners. Despite this context, the responses did also report good managers, both immediate line managers but also those in more senior leadership positions that had a positive impact on the experiences of some of the participants:

You need to know that if you make a decision and you can evidence why you've made that decision, that you're going to have the backing, even if it's the wrong decision. You know, the best managers I've had have always backed me, front-facing to other people. And then behind the scenes, they've said to me. Come on, now ‘Ellie’, that wasn't really a right decision was it? (Ellie, 01)

This was particularly evident in relation to autonomy, and a sense that the managers were advocating for them.

5.3.2 Autonomy

Data from the interviews highlighted that there used to be a sense of autonomy within the role and that staff responded well to this. This enabled creativity in practice and a feeling that staff were responding to the needs of service users with a general sense of impact within the role. This is particularly important in probation work given the need for professional curiosity (Phillips et al. 2022) and the ‘high-stakes’ of decision-making. However, when asked about the level of impact staff felt that they had within the organisation, this was limited. Furthermore, there was a sense that the impact they had within the organisation had changed over time, as Christine (02) highlights:

the original leadership was much more open to I've got this idea, and I think it might be interesting. I think we should try it. I think they were really confident to say, well, that sounds a bit off the wall. But okay, go for it, you know. Try it.

The change in the lack of power is also reflected in this response from a survey participant when asked what the positive benefits of leaving the probation service were:

I no longer feel frustrated at the powerlessness that has been imposed upon qualified and trained personnel who were not allowed to do their jobs properly. (Survey 8)

The importance of empowerment, choice and collaboration can be seen within the core values of trauma-informed practice (Petrillo and Bradley 2022; Senker et al. 2023). At an organisational level, there should be opportunities to empower staff members:

and find ways to increase and maximise feelings, experiences and opportunities for mastery, agency, choice and voice. (Treisman 2018, p.52)

5.3.3 Progression Opportunities

Linking to opportunities for ‘mastery’, a recurring issue within the responses was a perception of a lack of progression opportunities available across all grades within the service, both through lack of availability of opportunities and blocking:

It wasn't only me that had raised about development. If it had just been me I wouldn't have raised it in the meeting, but it's kind of, other people are feeling quite…. there's lots of lateral moves in probation. If I was at [inaudible] if I wanted to go to court, if I wanted to go to prison, in theory they should be quite easy to be able to kind of make them. I think the reality of that is not what has happened. (Anne, 02)

This was seen within both the reasons for leaving, but also in what some of the participants reflected that they had gained from subsequent employment elsewhere. For example, some participants referred to the availability of opportunities within their new roles, and a sense of being valued and supported:

I feel appreciated in my role, supported and have a really good team, there's progression opportunities and I'm a lot more happier. (Survey, 31)

A lack of opportunities for progression and sense of being ‘locked in’ the role (Stengård et al. 2016), can be linked to the internal feelings of the individual; self-worth and confidence, as well as affecting the individuals sense of agency in relation to being able to move on from their situation.

Interestingly, the majority of participants (n = 20) went on to other ‘helping’ professions including the third sector, psychological services and the local authority. Others went into education and research (n = 9), policy-related roles (n = 5) and other businesses (n = 2). Some respondents were unemployed (n = 3) or had retired (n = 3), and the further employment of (n = 2) was unknown.

5.4 Return

In addition to the themes above looking at the experiences of probation practice and leaving, the research explored whether participants would consider a return to the service. Many (43%) of the responses showed an unwillingness to return:

I would not return to the service and have discouraged others from joining the service. The mistreatment of staff is reckless at best, if not by design. (Survey, 11)

However, seven participants (15%) indicated that they would consider a return to probation practice, and a further 20 (43%) indicated that this is something that they would ‘maybe’ consider. In exploring this, the satisfaction of the core work with people on probation was something that regularly came up when referring to the role, and the ambivalence to leave, suggesting this was still a pull to the job:

What a privilege it is that people let you into their lives. And that's a real privilege. And it's not one to be scoffed at and pooh poohed at. (Ellie, 01)

Responses also highlighted the highs of the job. It was clear that participants felt proud of the work they did and, for many, the choice to leave was a painful one. This may also give some insight into the reasons that staff still feel drawn to the service:

I didn't really want to leave but felt I had no choice: I loved the job when allowed to do it properly… (Survey, 02)

I didn't actually want to leave and even returned after a year, but due to the job being impossible to do I couldn't see myself staying. (Survey, 12)

Whilst the statistics regarding the potential for a return to the service could be seen to paint somewhat of a hopeful picture for future recruitment and retention, the qualitative responses highlight some priority areas that would benefit from consideration within these strategies. Responses reflected the current thinking of the need for a devolution of probation from the civil service and centralised control (Bowen 2024; HMIP, 2023a):

The current one HMPPS policy and civil service does not sit well with me… (Survey, 01)

Management would have to change. Probation would have to leave the civil service (bullying and incompetence have increased considerably since then) & be more separate from the prison service. (Survey, 21)

A further area that participants cited as needing to change was a shift from the blame culture that participants felt in relation to serious further offences as can be seen in this survey response:

The SFO process is punitive and unfair and as a Head of service I did not believe it was right. That would have to change. (Survey, 01)

Overall, participants noted the need for changes to a variety of aspects of the role, workload and their treatment from the organisation:

I retain a passion for what I believe to be the underpinning principles and purpose of Probation. However, I doubt I would return to an “offender” facing role and, more generally, could not return to the service until the current workload, funding and resource issues are significantly improved. (Survey, 16)

I would love to return as that role was fulfilling and is aligned with my values but I would only return if the pay matched the level of work we do and if there was a real change in the way staff are treated and the expectations are realistic and there are appropriate resources to enable staff to do their job. (Survey, 12)

These responses demonstrate how staff continue to hold their strong probation identity and values after they have left the service, and so it can be seen that there could be a real opportunity to encourage experienced officer's back to the role. However, the service would benefit from acknowledging the severity of the organisational harm that has been highlighted within the responses, drawing on trauma-informed values to promote organisational safety (Treisman 2018) and ensure that staff members feel valued.

For example, a failure to respond to staff who are considering leaving could be seen to impact on the extent that staff felt valued by the service. One participant indicated that this would be something that would need to change for them to consider a return to the service:

If the focus changed, there was a feeling from senior management that experienced officers were valuable and important. (Survey, 26)

Staff highlighting the way they felt unsupported and under-valued was also reflected within the interviews, when asked about whether participants had received an exit interview. At the time, exit interviews were not routinely done, and these would rarely be completed on a one-to-one basis. This also led to staff feeling like they had not had the opportunity to voice the reasons for leaving:

I got given a survey and I would have loved to have had an exit interview, because I had a lot of things to say. But yeah, no, I didn't have an actual exit interview, which I definitely would have liked. (Anne, 03)

No, I didn't get an exit interview. I got a form to fill in. I got another form that told me what I had to do if I, if I, found anything else, a conflict of interest and all this sort of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. (Ellie, 01)

One of the interview participants did receive an exit interview; not directly from their line manager but from a more senior leader, offering more flexibility, but by this time it was too late and the decision had been made.

6 Conclusion

This study aimed to understand the factors contributing to the voluntary resignations of probation staff within England and Wales, with a view to support strategies for retention. The findings provide valuable insights on this under-researched area, identifying three key themes affecting decisions to leave. The perceived threat to practitioner and organisational values and identity has highlighted a concern that the probation service is being absorbed into other, more dominant, organisational cultures (e.g., Prison and Civil Service) overshadowing the core values of probation work. The emotional impact of the job has been discussed comprehensively in other scholars' work; however, this study underscores the significant role that this has in practitioner decisions to leave and, therefore, should be a priority focus for HMPPS. The final theme from the research, organisational climate, highlights that organisational tensions, a feeling of a lack of autonomy and a perceived lack of progression opportunities impact on practitioners' decisions to leave the organisation. Thus, attempts to address the issues of retention should focus on the investment in staff, creating an environment that encourages opportunities for progression, moving beyond short-term decisions that may only temporarily retain staff.

Findings from this study add to the existing literature and provide further evidence of ‘workplace harm’ and the situation of probation as a ‘post-traumatic organisation’. The findings also provide important insights into the impact of successive organisational change and the emotional toll it takes on practitioners. What is clear is that the changes as a result of TR are life-changing for the probation service; whilst the reforms occurred over a decade ago, its impact has been so damaging that despite unification the service has completely changed; through its structure, and leadership, with ongoing organisational changes as attempts to reconcile with what it once was.

With the government announcement of an additional 1000 trainee probation officers within the next year, it is important that the leadership does not lose sight of the problems associated with volume recruitment; the issues with an inexperienced workforce and the cyclical nature of mass recruitment and burn out. Valuing staff, providing support and enabling progression are all keys to assisting staff retention and help to combat work-based harm. Recent developments in attempting to understand staff attrition and focus on retention of staff demonstrate the need for the service to invest in, and support current staff. The findings of this research indicate that in doing so the organisation should embed awareness of organisational trauma, and promote safety, empowerment and voice for staff members, recognising the pervasive nature of the changes impacting them.

Positively, amongst leavers, probation identity is strong, with a number wanting to return to probation work. Perhaps some respite from the work allowed them to ‘recharge’, a point of learning for the service when considering the positive impact on retention support for staff development can have. This is an opportunity for the service, who, at the time of writing, launched a ‘National Probation Officer Returners Campaign’ (HMPPS 2024) recruitment campaign; however, this will not attract leavers if issues remain unresolved.

Oh Look!

From Civil Service World:-

MoJ sets up new probation and reoffending directorate

Up to £100,000 on offer for director to lead work on probation policy and community and reoffending policy

The Ministry of Justice is setting up a new probation and reoffending directorate to bring policy work on the two areas closer together and respond to growing demand for the two services.

The directorate will provide “significant policy input” to deliver justice secretary Shabana Mahmood’s priority of using technology solutions to manage offenders in the community, according to a job advert for a director to lead the team.

The MoJ is offering a salary of up to £100,000 for the director, who will lead the MoJ’s work on probation policy and on community and reoffending policy.

Its early objectives will include working with HM Prison and Probation Service to develop and deliver the MoJ’s probation policy response to the independent sentencing review, led by former justice secretary David Gauke.

The final report of the review, published last month, called for greater investment in the Probation Service to boost its “capacity and resilience” in the face of proposed reforms to shorten sentences for some categories of offender and reduce the number of people behind bars. The review noted that locking up fewer criminals will “place a greater burden on a probation system that is already under great strain”.

The director will be responsible for ensuring the directorate is staffed with “high-quality colleagues”. They will report to the director general of policy – prisons, offenders and analysis and will manage three deputy directors working on probation policy, community and reoffending policy and the reducing reoffending analysis division.

Writing in the candidate pack, director general Ross Gribbin said the job on offer is an “extraordinarily varied and interesting” one.

“You will represent the lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice and resolve the most urgent policy issues within and beyond the department. You will provide strong, strategic, and inspiring leadership for your team, and secure the confidence of ministers and officials across the department and wider government,” he wrote.

“You will be joining a great team and working on some of the most complex and important issues that make lives better for the citizens we serve.”

The directorate will sit within the MoJ’s Policy Group, which is responsible for setting and advising on policy ranging from criminal, civil, family and administrative justice to the UK’s domestic human rights framework and international obligations. The group also supports the justice secretary in their constitutional relationship with the judiciary and oversees the constitutional relationship between the UK and the crown dependencies.

The successful candidate director will “play an active role” in the Policy Group’s leadership and champion diversity and inclusion and wellbeing, according to the job ad.

Applications for the director job close on 15 June.

The Voice of Reason

Good to see Napo Cymru continuing to make the case for a stand-alone probation service separated from HM Prison Service. This from Napo magazine:- 

Su pictured with her MP Catherine Fookes

“Probation is already overflowing” Su McConnel warns MPs

Veteran Napo Cymru member and staunch probation campaigner, Su McConnel, delivered a searing indictment of the state of the probation service when she gave evidence to MPs on the welsh Affairs Committee this week. Speaking with clarity and conviction, Su captured what many working in the system have long felt: probation is in deep crisis and policymakers must act before it collapses completely.

Overflowing, overlooked, and under pressure

Su was clear from the outset that probation is not just at capacity; it’s beyond it. With caseloads ballooning, staff struggling to cope, and public safety at risk, she argued that the system is dangerously close to breaking. “This panel is primarily focused on prisons. Prisons are very nearly full to capacity. Probation is already overflowing,” she said pointing out: “We have got a situation where 60 cases is the norm.”

Despite repeated promises, staffing remains inadequate, and the promised support has yet to materialise. “We are always told that the troops are coming over the hill, but they never seem to quite land and stay.”

Recruitment is tough but retention is worse

When asked why the workforce is struggling, Su pointed to a toxic mix of low pay, high stress, and disillusionment. “It is not just recruitment; it is retention. It is people staying.” Su explained: “We are burning through new staff,” and that “I have never seen so many people signed off with stress as I have done this year.”

Demoralised by a shift in culture

The profession that many joined out of a desire to make a difference is becoming unrecognisable. Rather than the previous motto of “advise, assist, befriend” Su said: “Actually, ‘Surveil ‘em, nail ‘em and jail ‘em’ does feel to a lot of new probation staff like what they are being asked to do, because there is no scope or room for the reasons they joined.”

“We have shifted so far from a model of supporting people to change to a model of enforcement that new practitioners are very quickly losing their belief that they can do anything positive,” she concluded.

The human toll

The emotional impact on staff was another key theme of Su’s evidence. “I know colleagues who are in their first year of practice and who are crying on a daily basis because they feel that they are not doing the job that they came into the profession to do.”

It’s a false economy

Su repeatedly challenged the government’s short-term thinking, from underfunded reforms to politically driven headlines that ignore the realities on the ground by saying: “Probation is largely invisible to the public, until we fail.” She called for proper investment — in people, not just systems — and demanded that MPs listen to the voices of those on the frontline.

The magic wand? A real review and independence

When asked what she would do if given a magic wand, Su was clear: “I would want a commitment to a root and branch review of probation, with a view to separating it from the Prison Service — as much as we respect our colleagues — to be a stand-alone organisation in its own right.”

The message to ministers is clear

Su McConnel’s appearance before the Committee didn’t just highlight problems, it offered a path forward. Her call for investment, professional trust, and workforce support resonated far beyond the hearing room. She didn’t ask for miracles. Just for leadership to listen.

This article is based on Su McConnel’s oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee on 14 May 2025. Watch here