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