Mic Drop

Rather happily, much of today's blog post presented itself yesterday via a readers contribution:- 

Some of us remember when Probation Officers were seconded to prisons. I do not believe the development of Offender Management Units or the later OMIC model has ever truly worked. My recollection is that OMIC was introduced primarily to reduce community probation caseloads by retaining individuals in custody, thereby lowering WMT figures. OMIC might have been effective if prisons had been properly resourced and if OMUs had taken full responsibility for pre-release and resettlement work. It was also a mistake to place Senior Probation Officers under the line management of prison governors, though some seemed to welcome the change for its status rather than substance. It’s always seemed a bit hush-hush if they received the prison pay bonuses we in the community did not.

The ethos and values of probation have undoubtedly been eroded by OMIC’s implementation, which stood in direct contrast to the earlier “end-to-end offender management” model probation had taken on a decade before. The simultaneous continued shift towards risk assessment and management alongside police-led models for managing RSOs and IOM cases further diluted probation’s rehabilitative role. I think the increase in electronic tagging and monitoring is only going to make this worse.

An excellent article by both a Probation Manager and a former Director of the Probation Institute makes a persuasive case for returning to the original offender management model, (without Probation Reset, Probation Impact, or OMIC which have since taken over), and restoring probation’s role as the commissioner of local services. This would allow a single Probation Practitioner to provide consistent support from custody to community, just as recommended by the original blueprint by Baron Patrick Carter in Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime: A New Approach.

The Justice Committee’s recent inquiry into Resettlement and Rehabilitation also focuses on breaking the cycle of reoffending through holistic, rehabilitative methods. Though it has not received much attention I have seen, the submissions are outstanding.

Professors Mike Maguire and Peter Raynor’s submission is particularly strong.They describe the collective failure of resettlement practice, worsened by the organisational upheaval of splitting, part-privatising, and later reunifying the Probation Service. They seem to argue that existing OMIC and resettlement structures prevent the continuity and relational focus essential for genuine rehabilitation, a view that’s hard to dispute.

A submission from a Probation Manager recalls the success of Probation Trusts and reinforces the need for probation as a vehicle for rehabilitation, transformation, and effective supervision. Their related and linked article offers vivid examples of real end-to-end offender management.  It is good this still exists, but it is achievable only through a stable, consistent, and professionally empowered probation workforce.

In what could best be described as a mic-drop on this entire subject I highly recommend Professor Rob Canton’s Probation as Social Work as shows how probation has been recast as a punitive agency, constrained by its alignment with prisons and shaped by risk-based systems, bias, and overreliance on generic interventions. The result is a service that was always destined to struggle.

Most of these authors are, or were, qualified probation officers, their views deserve to be heard. All are calling for an enhanced probation approach, to lead on resettlement from prison and to be coordinators of access community services. I didn’t intend to write an essay (nor did I read all of Napo’s commentary), but on this point, they are entirely right OMIC does not work, and in truth, it was never designed to work for probation. It has never been structured, resourced, or managed to support the prisoner as a client or enable probation to fulfil its purpose.

There are already enough credible voices pointing to what would work. Perhaps it’s time to bring them together with the Probation and Prison Chief Officers, David Lammy, HMIP, the Probation Institute, Napo, and a few renowned individuals, academics and practitioners with lived experience, keeping the rest of NOMS, HMPPS, and associated bureaucracy out of the room, and see what they produce.

The Napo 2025 AGM takes place from October 16th–18th in Eastbourne and online, with key figures such as Kim Thornden-Edwards and Martin Jones in attendance. I’ll want to be optimistic but I won’t be holding my breath.

Anon (Probation Officer)

--oo00oo--

It's interesting that the above takes us back to Rob Canton's 'mic drop' paper Probation as Social Work which I rather cheekily re-published in full over 4 posts in May last year and introduced thus:-

The latest Probation Journal carries an extremely important article by Professor Rob Canton and in my view should be regarded as essential reading for all probation staff past, present and future. I don't say this lightly and in an ideal world I'd rather hope it gained the attention of politicians and indeed anyone in positions of power and influence.

We find ourselves in the middle of an unprecedented prison, probation and criminal justice crisis and it's election year. Essentially this article sets out in forensic but clear detail much of how and why we got here and one would hope it convincingly makes the case for a fundamental rethink of the role and purpose of probation. In my opinion, failure to grasp the urgent need for change will inevitably mean that probation not only becomes increasingly irrelevant but most worryingly, entrenched as part of the problem.

Being conscious that the article may not be easily accessible for those who are not members of Napo, together with a desire to bring it to the attention of a wider audience, I've taken the liberty of sharing it in a number of posts.

But the issue of us being forcibly removed from our social work roots has been discussed on here many, many times. In searching the archives, I came across this from 2020 in response to a blog post:-

1. Did the removal of the Social Work requirement in 1997 move probation from a left wing to a right wing organisation? Yes. More accurately, it anchored the moves that had already taken place. 

2. If the social Work ethos belongs to the left, then its removal must surely cede possession to the right? Yes. Its now 'owned' in every sense by the MoJ/HMPPS, a control-and-command led profit-oriented structure.

3. Why does social work define anyone's political identity? For myself, it's tied up with whether we regard people as a commodity to be exploited or as part of the social fabric, to be cherished. The 'right' embraces control & command, monetisation, exploitation, profiteering - 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. The 'left' tends towards the nurturing, caring & sharing of peoples' experiences, cultures & lives, regardless as to whether its the fruits or the burdens that are being shared.

There you go, Bamber, there's my starter for ten.

Note 

"A "mic drop" is an act of triumphantly and dramatically dropping a microphone at the end of a performance or speech to signify a final, impressive, and unbeatable statement. Figuratively, it can also refer to making a decisive and impactful statement, argument, or action that leaves others speechless."

OMiC is a failure!

I notice the following was published by Napo on Wednesday 8th October:-

OMIC Review

Napo has pushed for a fundamental review of OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) for years and we welcome in principle the recent announcement of this by HMPPS. OMIC has never worked as it was intended to. In far too many prisons across England and Wales staffing levels have been too low, with too much work expected of Probation staff, with constant change throughout the time of OMiC's existence, for example the following two developments that have been implemented by HMPPS in recent years. The line management of Senior Probation Officer's in Offender Management Units (OMUs) passing to Governor-grade staff in public sector Prisons, consistently opposed by Napo, has been incredibly problematic and stressful for those involved. The merger of Pre-Release Teams and OMUs has also increased the push/pull factors on role boundaries, job descriptions and spans of control for management and probation staff alike.

The review is being undertaken by means of 2 different surveys and face to face workshops. Unfortunately, the unions did not have sight of these documents until they were sent out to OMU and other Prison staff. Members have been contacting us regarding the length and suitability of questions in this survey, many telling us it's taking too much of their already scarce time to complete and they don't really know what they are being asked for. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the survey if it is disregarded, returned incomplete or incorrectly filled in. The survey results alone cannot become the sole basis for reconstruction if they are so flawed. If I can compare the survey to the foundations of a house we already seem to be heading for considerable subsidence.

We recently received a letter from the HMPPS senior leaders regarding this review, setting out the following aims:

Align with sentencing reform – so we can deliver the sentence progression requirements introduced by ISR without compromising public protection standards

Unfortunately we have not yet seen details of how this will look and the processes involved in order to try to mitigate the impact of these changes on our members. Napo continue to have significant concerns about the additional work this will require of Probation staff, in prisons as well as the community, and the basic feasibility of these 'progression' proposals in the current Sentencing Bill.

Release workforce capacity – streamline case management processes and rebalance prison and probation roles, thereby releasing some Probation Officer resource for deployment to priority areas of active public risk. 

While we have received assurances from HMPPS centrally that the redeployment of Probation staff in Prisons is not the object of this review we are receiving mixed messages as the above aim seems to be supporting such moves. Similarly, an ongoing activity timing review involving OMIC includes a separate survey of prison roles being undertaken as part of workforce planning, and we have been made aware some members of regional senior management are already telling people this will result in moving prison probation staff back to the field. Again, Napo has not been officially informed of these potentially dramatic changes which, in our view, is totally unacceptable practice and is not in the spirit of meaningful consultation. We will continue to support and represent our members working in Prisons who are being impacted by this chaotic approach being taken, or allowed to persist, by HMPPS. We will continue to bring pressure on the employer to ensure Napo and all other relevant trade unions are appropriately included going forwards. If you become aware of discussions or comments on the potential redeployment of Prison-based staff please notify us and ensure you raise it with your local Branch for inclusion on the local/regional meetings that take place between the trade unions and employer.

Provide operational consistency and quality – reduce model complexity, clarify roles for Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs), and embed a single, nationally understood way of working. 

This is the most straightforward aim and Napo has no issues with this as it underpins the reasons for the review. The way in which this is being done, and the apparent failure of appropriate trade union consultation, is the issue.

Produce digital enablement – propose pragmatic adjustments to OASys/ARNS and hand over processes. 

While we agree with the sentiment, we would all love to be able to streamline OASys and the new ARNS assessment, we are sensible of the fact there still need to be a robust and accurate risk assessment and risk management plan in place for cases. We have very real concerns that community-based Probation staff will be left having to pick up more tasks if pre-release work is 'pragmatically adjusted' without careful consideration and planning on the impact of all involved.

Enable timely national implementation – by Spring 2026.

The review is expected to conclude by the end of the year, with implementation of agreed changes scheduled for Spring 2026, in line with Independent Sentencing Review recommendations.

Given the scope of the review, issues with the surveys and the lack of proper trade union consultation it is likely this a wholly unrealistic deadline. Napo is willing to work with the employer on behalf of our members but we need not only a seat at the table but access to significant information that seems to be currently withheld from us. This is not the kind of working relationship that helps support staff morale or retention.

We were informed that "Engagement sessions were underway with frontline staff, operational leaders, and key stakeholders providing valuable insights into current challenges and opportunities" These have now completed without giving the unions enough warning to be able to support our members to have meaningful engagement with them. This is a shame as it is vital to get your voices heard. I would urge members to report back to Napo with any issues, concerns and positives that come out of these sessions so we can be as informed as possible in order to support you. We are told that "Formal consultation with Trade Unions (POA, PGA, NTUS, and Probation TUs: NAPO, UNISON, GMB SCOOP) will follow once proposals are finalised."

We would argue we should be involved in helping to formulate these proposals instead of having to untangle the problems when they are implemented.

--oo00oo--

When the subject was mentioned the other day, it generated the following responses:-

hmmm, not a good look; it reads to me like napo whining about how they've been totally sidelined & completely outmanoeuvred by hmpps (again).

Agree, HMPPS couldn't care less what NAPO wants or thinks. But in all honesty from my experience, OMIC provides us with nothing at all, I don't see any value in Probation being in the Prisons and usually anything I need is provided by the Prison key workers. All over this blog people say we need to be distinct from Prisons so pull out all Probation and provide some actual work relief to officers in the community! I'd also tell the Prisons it's their responsibility to do all pre-release work including not being able to release anyone until they have secured accommodation.

On the subject of accommodation upon release, the calendar shows that on xmas eve this year there will be five days worth of prisoners released, many of whom will be homeless. The following week is not much better. Maybe people need to start raising the issue now rather than being confronted with it on the day.

I read recently that the national average for prisoners being released homeless is 16% and rising rapidly. That has to impact quite significantly on government plans when it comes to tagging and recalls.

A Traumatised Organisation

It was an interesting discussion, I clicked on it when Jim put it up in a previous blog. Gaie Delap used the term "moral injury" to describe the trauma of the injustice she experienced. This term occurs to me whenever I read the comments section in this blog, or when I reflect on why I am still raging at the damage to my profession after retirement, or when I speak with colleagues still in work. 

Just recently one of them, talking about the terrible morale in their office, said "even the new staff, they're hating it. They just dont feel they are helping anyone" It was sort of encouraging to hear that the new recruits, who have never known any different than HMPPS, are there because they want to HELP people, not batter crap into a laptop and breach and recall. I mean, there's the poor pay, and the vicious blame culture too, but right at the centre is the yawning chasm where a solid set of values and sense of justice should be.

Anyway, back to Moral Injury, which depending on where you look for a definition, is a form of PTSD,. Collectively and individually, Probation is a traumatised organisation, and it is playing out in front of us. It plays out in this blog; the rage and the grief, the fury aimed at any and everyone who might have prevented or softened the damage. It plays out in work, the bullying and intimidation meted out by an organisation that, at least at the top, is run by people who sold their souls and they know it. 

Run by "leaders" (now that is a trigger word for our shared condition to flare) who spout guff about "trauma informed practice" but can't or wont translate that into what they do to their staff, like it doesnt tanslate into the work we are told to do. So it plays out in long term sickness and people just voting with their feet and leaving at the first viable opportunity. 

Heaven forfend Probation staff are instructed to name and shame their clientele in public. Such a stark horrible reminder of just how dismal the whole thing is, and where its heading. Question is, can anything be done to turn this tanker around? If so, what?

--oo00oo--

Would the state wish to lose the control over the criminal justice system it has now secured following the sham of TR? Would it willingly return the Probation Service to its original position of self determination and independence? The Tories are now talking about placing sentencing guidelines into the hands of politicians - how long before Labour are saying that's a good idea? 

Lots of traditional ideas are being destroyed - customer service, social justice, rehabilitation etc - we're now a nation of consumers, or units, in a market driven economy, losing our sense of community, justice and fairness for their own sake. I expect the last thing to go will be the lie being sold to new probation recruits that they will be spending their time 'helping' people - a blatant miselling of the role because the unfolding truth is too soul destroying to contemplate - that they will be monitoring, controlling and enforcing all day to align with the plan to finish off probation and integrate with the new ethos of units, markets and profits.

--oo00oo--

My researching the notion of 'moral injury' led to much discussion of it in the context of military action, but it then brought me to this article published in the Probation Journal of June 2022:- 

Probation and the ethics of care

Abstract

Discussions of probation's values can be enriched by an appreciation of care ethics. This approach is explained with attention to its emphasis on relationships and individualisation. The implications for probation's work are explored, including its significance for the supervisory relationship, its challenges for the management of the organisation and the value of individualised approaches. Care ethics argues for practice shaped not by rules and processes, but by people and their circumstances in all their diversity. Care ethics offers a principled and effective approach to probation's work.

The values of probation

Probation workers have been aware of the moral significance of their work from the earliest days. In recent years, these aspects have often been explored in terms of probation values, considering the moral worth, the politics and the practical feasibility of finding ways of giving expression to probation's ethical commitments (Canton and Dominey, 2017: Chapter 3; Cowburn et al., 2013; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Nellis and Gelsthorpe, 2004; Williams, 1994).

Sometimes, in the contested political arena, it can seem as if these concerns have been pushed aside in the relentless pursuit of the enquiry to find out ‘what works’. Yet, as David Garland has insisted ‘… the pursuit of values such as justice, tolerance, decency, humanity and civility should be part of any penal institution's self-consciousness - an intrinsic and constitutive aspect of its role - rather than a diversion from its “real” goals or an inhibition on its capacity to be “effective”.’ (1990: 292)

For that matter, it has been argued that trying to establish probation practice on the foundation of what's right rather than what works may turn out not only to defend and enhance these values, but even to make it more likely that probation practice will achieve some of the objectives that it sets for itself (Canton, 2013).

Conclusion

The argument here is not that codes of ethics and practice guidance have no part to play in ensuring good quality probation practice, nor does it suggest that the probation service should pay no attention to the outcomes of its work. However, drawing on the principles of virtue ethics and care ethics, it does advocate an approach that takes seriously the relational element of practice, that considers the circumstances of each case, and that has an unapologetic focus on care.

Viewing probation practice through the lens of care ethics suggests that probation values emerge from principled people (at all levels in the organisations) trying to do the right thing in a caring way in difficult circumstances. Both care ethics and virtue ethics focus on the characteristics of the practitioner and, for care ethics, on the interaction between the practitioner and service user. Both approaches are sceptical that probation values could be understood simply as a set of prescriptions that simply need to be applied in each case and in each situation.

To put caring at the centre of probation practice does not produce easy answers to the ethical dilemmas faced by practitioners, which often involve not just the interests, rights and concerns of service users, but also those of past and potential victims of crime and of the wider community. Identifying the course of action that best communicates care and meets needs requires debate and reflection; different people may come to contrasting conclusions.

Care is as much about how work is undertaken as what is done or what outcome is achieved. For example, service users have been found to accept most probation interventions as legitimate. Even monitoring, which might be supposed to be a resented intrusion, can be perceived as an indication that you matter, that somebody cares about what you are doing, especially when it is acknowledged as a legitimate aspect of the role (Dominey, 2019). And a corollary of the acceptance of monitoring is that sometimes the service user will be found to have been in default and enforcement action taken.

There may be objections to the idea that caring is the ethical way to approach probation practice. Perhaps ‘offenders’ do not merit care; perhaps care has no place in punishment. The arguments from care ethics, and from this article, push in the opposite direction: care deserves consideration as a guiding virtue of probation. It is not the case that according more care to ‘offenders’ leaves less for ‘victims’; ethical practice is concerned about the needs of everyone in the community. Further, the victim/offender dichotomy is misleading; insights into the trauma and abuse that form part of the life stories of so many service users (Anderson, 2016) highlight the extent of the victim/offender overlap and demonstrate that probation practice should, drawing on Tronto’s (1993) framework, include caring about, caring for and care giving.

A signal advantage of a care ethics approach to the work of probation is its promise to align ethical practice, effective practice and the motivations that inspire so many probation staff. Although our main line of argument has insisted on the ethical merits of a care approach, we have also seen that it turns out to be effective in terms of the purposes that are often set for probation – in particular, compliance, reduced reoffending and even the management of risk. Any successes that probation might achieve in reducing reoffending and in public protection amply fulfil its responsibility to show care to everyone and not just those under its supervision.

Care ethics, like virtue ethics, insists on doing the right things for the right reasons. For all the political attempts to disavow caring, it remains the case that large numbers of people join the profession because of a commitment to help and care for vulnerable people (Cracknell, 2016; Deering, 2011; Mawby and Worrall, 2013). The principle of care engages these motives, aligning them with both effective and ethical practice, bringing a coherence and integrity to probation's work.

Jane Dominey

Rob Canton

Clash of Cultures

I saw this cartoon from Private Eye online in August and I've been pondering how to use it. For me it epitomises how huge chunks of the Civil Service are perceived by the public - Home Office; DWP and MoJ. It's a corrupting influence on the Probation Service and we need to break free.  

And thanks go to the reader for spotting this story from Inside Time that adds to the growing mountain of evidence of a complete failure by HMPPS and MoJ to understand the probation ethos and frankly an unworkable clash of cultures between a uniformed service and us. 

Restorative Justice ‘thwarted by HMPPS’

Restorative Justice – where crime victims meet directly with offenders in an attempt to obtain closure – has been an important part of rehabilitation in prisons since the 1980s. It is supported by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Prisons Minister Lord Timpson.

Yet organisations which run Restorative Justice sessions across England and Wales claim that a unit set up within the Prison Service to extend and oversee the practice is in fact blocking it from happening.

Why Me?, a leading charity in the field, claims the unit – known as ‘reHub’ – is excessively risk averse, does not trust experts, insists cases are referred through its own process, takes decisions without consulting those involved, and fails to explain its thinking. Its lack of capacity to handle the volume of cases required is said to have prevented meetings from going ahead.

In an apparent acknowledgement of the problem, the Ministry of Justice has now ordered a review of reHub’s work “with the aim to identify areas for improvement”.

Restorative Justice involves perpetrators of crimes communicating directly with their victims, provided both parties agree, to discuss the incident involved. It is run locally, and may be funded by Police and Crime Commissioners or other charities. Victim Support recommends it. Agencies would work together to see if a meeting was appropriate, and if so, enable it either in prison or via probation. It has been found to lead to a 14 per cent reduction in reoffending, and 80 per cent of victims who took part say it helped bring closure.

In 2016, MPs on the Justice Select Committee found that Restorative Justice was operating inconsistently across the country, and made recommendations to strengthen the process. This led, in 2023, to HM Prison and Probation Service establishing the HMPPS Restorative Practice Hub (reHub). In February that year, the new unit published a strategy that was supposed to lay out guidance on the concept and responsibilities of those involved in the process.

However, charities believe that the unit has made matters worse. Why Me? says that since reHub became involved it has interfered in a system that worked smoothly and effectively, rather than looking at ways of expanding the scheme to other areas lacking in options.

Practitioners have spoken of their frustrations. Comments made to Inside Time include:

• “Probation will not even talk to us now without going through reHub. In the past, we could communicate directly.”
• “We no longer have access to initial conversations with prisoners to assess risk ourselves.”
• “There is a lack of communication. Timescales are hard to cope with.”
• “Panel meetings with reHub are dreadful. They talk down to us, though we have done this for years with great success.”

Victims are the most affected by this change, and they have found that decisions are taken without involving them, even to cancel a programme previously agreed. They also say the wait now for a case to be heard is distressing.

One man from London, a victim of assault, told us: “Due to reHub I pulled out of the scheme, even though it had been me who had requested the meeting. It was taking so long. I am so disappointed that I have not managed to get the closure I sought.”

A woman from north-east England, who we will call Lucy, had been robbed and injured by an attacker she wanted to meet to bring closure. Lucy said: “The delays they are causing are giving me stress. I took up the courage to ask to participate in Restorative Justice but the time they have taken to get it organised has made me even more stressed, so I have pulled out. I now feel worse than ever.”

“Why Me?” put these issues before the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson. Inside Time has now been told by the MoJ: “The HMPPS Restorative Practice Hub (reHub) is conducting a focused internal review of the work of the team with the aim of identifying areas for improvement and provide actionable recommendations. It will assess current processes, team structure, policy challenges, stakeholder engagement, and data capabilities.”

Inside Time understands that this will be a three-month process. “Why Me?” says it trusts this process will end with reHub making a positive, not negative, contribution in the future.

--oo00oo--

It will be recalled how HMPPS/MoJ pulled the plug on Circles of Support and Accountability over the years:-

https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2019/07/poor-decision-making-at-moj.html

https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2021/04/moj-proved-wrong.html

And then more recently the failure to offer any support for the Nottingham-based Safer Living Foundation:-

The Safer Living Foundation (SLF) was a British charity established in 2014 to prevent and reduce sexual offending by supporting individuals convicted of sexual offenses and those at risk of offending. It was a multi-agency collaboration involving representatives from HMP Whatton, Nottingham Trent University, and the National Probation Service, focusing on research and rehabilitation through initiatives like the Safer Living Centre and Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA). It has since closed, with its closure announced in April 2025.

https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/i-despair.html

HM Chief Inspector

Dear Mr Jones,

We’ve read your latest announcement published on 6 October 2025. Either you haven’t read our open letter, or you’ve chosen to ignore it. Because once again, you say everything except what actually matters.

You talk about “falling short in public protection” as if that’s news to anyone on the frontline. You repeat the same lines about “improvement,” “risk,” and “public safety” like a press release on loop, while ignoring what every probation officer has already told you: the system is collapsing because of how it’s managed, not because of those doing the job.

If you really want to improve probation and justice, then do better. Stop forcing probation to overpromise on risk management, public protection, and crime control. Instead, start with its training, staffing, resources and identity, the questions everyone keeps dodging.

Ask yourself what a true probation champion, Gerry McNally, once asked: “What do clients think of probation? What should probation be, a friend, an acquaintance, or an authority to be feared?” And then try to understand how Probation operates within the tension between the probation of liberty and the restriction of liberty; it cannot effectively embody both.

Think about that. Because until those truths are faced, probation will remain broken. It’s no longer qualified to be a social work agency, it shouldn’t be an extension of law enforcement, it isn’t resourced to be a welfare provider, and it’ll be a tragedy if a century-old service ends up reduced to nothing more than a tagging, monitoring, and prison-overflow management unit.

I don’t agree that “risk is intrinsic to the work of probation.” Rehabilitation is. That’s what probation is supposed to be about. But people like you, obsessed with risk, audits, ratings, and soundbites, have stripped the service of its purpose. You measure everything except what matters. You claim to “support staff” while inspecting them into the ground.

Probation isn’t failing because officers don’t understand risk. It’s failing because leadership, inspectors, and politicians don’t understand probation.

If you genuinely want to see improvement, stop dictating from above and start engaging with the people who actually keep the service running. We don’t need another inspection. We need honesty, investment, respect, and a clear purpose.

It fitting to end with the words of Mike Guilfoyle, former Probation Officer, may he Rest in Peace:

“At a time of reduced resources the Probation Service helps to reduce the harms of offending at the local level in communities blighted by crime. Probation has made a unique contribution to criminal justice and although many would argue that it has lost much by way of its traditional roots, professionalism and identity, it still merits its place at the centre of any rehabilitative revolution.”

Anon (Probation Officer)

Winner, Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner!

What is becoming crystal clear is that there is no extra money for probation at all. That much vaunted £700 million is all going on tagging. The future is - tagging, recalling, tagging, recalling, tagging, recalling (& bagging contracts). Thanks go to the contributor for putting all the following together:-

We start with this:-

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING (RESPONSIBLE PERSONS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2024 2024 No. 328

"This memorandum provides some historical information concerning the behaviour of Serco and G4S who were previously awarded contracts in 2005 for electronic monitoring services in England and Wales.Under those contracts, Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died. This issue came to light in 2013, contracts were terminated, and the matter was referred to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for investigation." 

(the excuses on serco's behalf up front)

Some gems from this memo:

* Licence conditions should be preventative as opposed to punitive and must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary.

* The exception is where prisoners are released early on Home Detention Curfew... For these prisoners the curfew also has a punitive role that reflects the fact that they are still serving the custodial element of the sentence.

* Serco and G4S overcharged the Ministry of Justice including multiple times for the same cases and for cases where the monitored person had died.

* A Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with Serco was approved by Mr Justice William Davis, resulting in a fine of £19.2m and the payment of compensation to the Ministry of Justice of £70m.

* The SFO agreed to the DPA in recognition of Serco’s prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct

Uh? ... "A subsidiary of contracting giant Serco will pay a £19.2m fine after admitting lying to the Ministry of Justice about the true extent of profits from supplying electronic tags. Lisa Osofsky, director of the Serious Fraud Office, said SGL ‘engaged in a concerted effort to lie to the Ministry of Justice in order to profit unlawfully at the expense of UK taxpayers’. The conduct came to light in late 2013 in an investigation into Serco and its employees in respect of the tagging contract."

Ah, I see... "Credit was given in the deferred prosecution agreement for the prompt compensation payment to the MoJ"

The background is neatly summarised by the SFO itself:

“Serco Geografix Ltd devised a scheme to defraud the Ministry of Justice by hiding the true extent of the profits being made between 2010 and 2013 by its parent company, Serco Limited, from its contract for the provision of electronic monitoring services. By dishonestly misleading the Ministry of Justice in this way, Serco Geografix Ltd prevented the Ministry of Justice from attempting to limit any of Serco Limited’s future profits, recover any of Serco Limited’s previous profits, seek more favourable terms during renegotiations of contracts, or otherwise threaten Serco Limited’s contract revenues."

Hence the 'prompt and voluntary self-disclosure of the fraudulent conduct' via:

* falsifying accounting records to overstate revenue earned and costs incurred in the performance of the services (charges 1-4);

* falsifying its Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2011 by reporting an additional £7.5m of purported revenue (charge 5).

But then: "On 26 April 2021, the prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office (the "SFO") of fraud charges against two former directors of Serco Geografix Limited ("Serco") collapsed. At the commencement of the trial, 9 years after the conduct underlying the charges began, and 7 years after the SFO commenced its investigation into Serco, disclosure failings came to light."

Winner Winner, Michelin 5 Star Dinner! MoJ gets a £70million bung, Serco get £hundreds-of-millions in new contracts, Serco directors aren't prosecuted, er, that's it. Nothing to see here. It's all perfectly normal.

The Contract awarded:

Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS). The provision of contact and monitoring centre and field service functions for Electronic Monitoring. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has awarded this contract for the provision of Electronic Monitoring Services (EMS)... FMS is a service which has been delivered under one national contract... FMS includes the monitoring of offenders released on licence which covers Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring, Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring and Alcohol monitoring (AM).

Value of contract: £329,900,000.00

Contract start date: 27 October 2023
Contract end date: 30 April 2030

This contract was awarded to 1 supplier: Serco Corporate Services Ltd

--oo00oo--

House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee

Investigation into electronic monitoring 16 September 2025

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is questioning Lord Timpson OBE DL, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and Jim Barton, Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring at the Ministry of Justice. The Committee will cover a range of topics, including the purpose of Electronic Monitoring, the future of Electronic Monitoring technology, anticipated increases in the use of Electronic Monitoring, and the use of Electronic Monitoring in detecting and preventing crime. The Committee will also ask about accountability mechanisms for private contractors, the consequences of breaching an Electronic Monitoring order, and the move to tag prison leavers as they leave prison.

The job title that sums it up in one pay packet: Director for Probation Reform and Electronic Monitoring. Highlights of the Timpson/Barton oral evidence... read it & weep:

On tagging:

Lord Bach: My general question is about what the Ministry of Justice sees as the purpose of electronic monitoring. I suppose another way of putting it is to ask whether probation can manage offenders just as effectively without resorting to electronic monitoring.

Lord Timpson: Electronic monitoring has an absolutely key central role in the justice sector. Its role is as punishment... Because we know that the technology works, you can look at what the evidence is... The technology is going to get more interesting.

Lord Tope: the Government are saying they really want to go big on EM... Is there going to be a new strategy?

Lord Timpson: There is not going to be a new strategy, but we need to expand the way electronic monitoring works ... to help us manage offenders more effectively in the community... we are doing a trial starting next month in six prisons where we will be, as we call it, tagging at source. That is, before people leave prison, we will be putting the tag on their ankle.

The truth about the £700million:

Lord Filkin: The plan is to double its use over the next few years, which is a quite remarkable increase. First, is probation ready for this?

Lord Timpson: As we expand electronic monitoring... We also need more probation staff... It is a case of recruiting them and training them up to do the job. That is where the £700 million of extra funding over the next three years is absolutely vital... I am confident in our suppliers’ ability to deliver this because I have ongoing conversations with them. I have had five board-level meetings with Serco.

Jim Barton: Building on the Minister’s evidence, we are working already with both suppliers in order to maximise the time that we have available to be ready for the expansion of EM... we have already delivered a doubling of the EM case load over the last five years. We have a track record of delivering significant expansions and innovations... How do we streamline process? That is where EM is so powerful, because it provides probation staff with data and information for them to have richer, more impactful conversations with the people on probation who they are working with.

On the contracts:

Lord Filkin: You have a duopoly, in effect, with just two suppliers, at a time when you are doubling your demand.

Lord Timpson: This is a contract that we inherited.

Lord Filkin: The implication of what you have said, Minister, is that you are contractually locked into those two suppliers. For how long are you contractually locked into those two suppliers?

Jim Barton: I am happy to come in on that point, Lord Filkin. There are a few points. The current contracts run until 2030. They are not monopoly contracts. If we wanted to, we would be able to run parallel competitions for alternative EM provision... We do not want to do that

The Chair: So that we are absolutely clear, the contract, as we understood it, with Serco and Allied Universal is basically a six-year contract from 2024 to 2030, but there is then an additional two-year option to extend it. During that period of time, you have said that you could be in a position to run a parallel contract or contracts

Jim Barton: To be really clear, we have no plan whatsoever to run a parallel contract... Our contracts work... We need to keep working with Serco and Allied Universal.

The Chair: Mr Barton, you are continuing to tell me what you have chosen to do. I am merely asking whether you have the option to do it differently, should you choose to do it differently.

Jim Barton: Apologies, Lord Chair. I think I said yes, but perhaps in Civil Service terms

The Chair: We hear very clearly where you are coming from, Mr Barton. We will move on.

The future:

Baroness Cash: We would be very interested to have some insight into what is coming.

Lord Timpson: The first thing to say is that everyone gets very excited about new things... We are exploring new hardware. We had a “Dragons’ Den” event before the Recess... We are trialling, from spring next year, live access for probation to where someone is. We will be able to check in. For example, an offender comes to see a probation officer and they say, “Why weren’t you at your appointment last week?” They say, “I was at the doctor’s”. They will be able to go in and say, “You weren’t at the doctor’s. You were in Blackpool for the day”... I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively.

Jim Barton: I have a few very quick additions, if I may... The acquisitive crime pathfinder that the Minister referenced is a good example of that, through which we are already able to provide, not live but overnight, GPS data for probation practitioners where they have robbers or burglars on their case load.

Lord Timpson: There is a small trial still going on in Northumberland on proximity tags

Oh yes, cobbler, we hear VERY, VERY clearly where you are coming from:

"Working in a prison is the most amazing job. If I had not gone down my path in commercial life, I think it would have been a most rewarding job to do. We have done a really good job on recruitment."

"I am really determined that, if offenders do not comply, I can have sanctions on them and recall them back to prison, because it is a punishment and we need to use the data effectively."

A Champion Speaks

With the government inexorably moving to the right with increasingly punitive measures that will inevitably affect the probation service and growing concern of its re-branding as a punishment service, I thought it a good idea to be reminded of the days when we had champions. What on earth would Mike Guilfoyle have made of things I wonder? Here he is reflecting in his inimitable style in a 'thought piece' written for the British Journal of Community Justice in 2013:- 

A PROBATION OFFICER'S BRIEF REFLECTIONS ON TWENTY YEARS OF REHABILITATIVE TRANSFORMATION 

In the autumn of 1990 I vividly recall my introductory visit to the probation office in North London that was to become the crucible in which my twenty year career as a probation officer was launched. The modern office block that housed the probation team was adjacent to an even newer Magistrates’ Court, 'the palace of justice', opined the avuncular Assistant Chief Probation Officer, during my orientation week. I was slowly but methodically inducted into what appeared at the time an almost quasi-masonic occupational rite of passage, the richly grounded foundations of probation practice, the working credos of individual practitioners and Jarvis shaped procedural requirements, unfolded by my probation colleagues. My allocated generic supervision team comprised a disparate but highly skilled and vastly experienced team of practitioners whose congruent value base offered a nuanced balancing of the thorny tension evinced by the thread of supervisory care and control neatly meshed with my emerging probation identity. Having undertaken a post-graduate Certificate of Qualification in Social Work and immersed myself in the lore of social work practice, in mental health and child protection field placements, I had secured to my unexpected delight a placement in a field team in South London which specialised in pre-sentence reports - then known as social enquiry reports. However I still felt professionally ill-equipped to handle the multiple casework challenges that were associated with a community that, in most respects, had all the textbook characteristics of Inner London's social deprivation and indicative levels of crime and disorder.

However the historic organisational arrangements pertaining in London at that time seemed anomalous to me. The borough boundary straddled by one of London's main arterial roads often excited some liminal disputes as to whose responsibility it was to prepare reports and assist discharged prisoners (who, although not on statutory licence, frequently called in to see the duty officer for help and advice). Providing continuity of supervision when addresses between boroughs often shifted on a regular basis due to the rootless lifestyles of many of those on supervision was what probation officers did.

The presence and availability of skilled, highly trained and experienced practitioners was of inestimable value and this was most in evidence when at weekly team meetings the allocation of reports was keenly debated and such deliberations were framed and informed by a well-crafted casework sensitivity of fractured lives whose paths to offending were shaped by the perceived structural and social deficits of poor educational opportunity, joblessness, addictive behaviours and homelessness. One colleague whose resort to assertive advocacy on behalf of prisoners and hearty embrace of the use of benign authority (pro-socially modelling, avant la lettre!) in client supervision, worked tirelessly to motivate and ensure some of those most likely to harm others always featured prominently in regular cross-country prison visits. She brought her cogent practice wisdom to the attention of policy makers in parliament and her strengths based and family focussed work with prisoners shaped some of her subsequent evidence informed and innovative work with sex offenders.

I was thankful that I was able to appear as a working probation officer with organisational sanction, when visible media interest was safely negotiated with the local newspaper that focused on "How probation contributed to safer communities". This was swiftly followed by an appearance with a probationer on BBC Newsnight on the best way of ensuring 'through the gate' support for ex-prisoners! Of course the low public profile of probation, outside of the critical negativity of more recent "supervisory failures" and what some view as a wider benign indifference to its work might be seen as a harbinger of just how susceptible it has been to the implementing of some of the more far reaching organisational reforms of recent times from the introduction of the National Offender Management Service to the current seismic Transforming Rehabilitation agenda.

To this end, report writing and the preeminent need to recommend to the judiciary the most bespoke sentencing options was reinforced by a well-developed and peer led gate keeping process that enabled neophytes as well as experienced colleagues, the opportunity to refine and discursively reflect on the impact of sentencing that might further disadvantage those whose shaping narrative of socially determined delinquency might further embed them in the criminal justice system. I was adjured on one occasion to attend a Crown Court hearing to present my report on a young woman whose offending was of a very serious nature. Her distressing and abusive domestic circumstances merited, after some considered supervisory case discussion with the senior probation officer, a "welfare oriented"' intervention (this was prior to probation becoming a sentence in its own right) and although the sentencing judge was unimpressed with the recommendation, he nonetheless was appreciative of the commitment and time expended by my presence as the author of the report in court.

The formative supervisory experience afforded by the time honoured practice of graduated caseload increases, supportive managerial oversight and added casework complexity over the "probationary" year for newly appointed probation officers, enabled the acquisition of new found skills in dynamic casework and the "smell of practice" on joint prison visits, shared case conference participation and doubling up on home visits. The vestigial Divorce Court Welfare role was also finding another institutional direction as I was entering probation. The time allotted to assimilating the practitioner’s knowledge bank around the diverse range of partnership organisations locally commissioned who worked with probation was invaluable as one needed time to gain such a ready familiarity with providers best suited to individual needs. Who to refer to and who to consult with, began to play an integral part in the compass of supervisory oversight. The local "spike" for homeless men, which had a much derided reputation from service users, began to work in lockstep with the courts and referring probation officers, once some of the vexed issues around institutional caretaking were flagged up in joint meetings and court liaison seminars.

This inveterate sense of the professionally compelling need to work together with others in the wider community to provide a skilled, purposeful, engaged and meaningful supervisory experience was brought home to me most poignantly when I was allocated supervisory responsibility for a woman who had a long standing and problematic drug and alcohol dependency. This was compounded by very enmeshed and abusive relationships which resulted in the build up of a persistent pattern of acquisitive offending, in which periods in custody interspersed periods of short -lived abstinence on release and recurrent relapses that meant reporting requirements under the incipient national standards framework (which had in the interim been tightened up but still offered some discretionary space) were often breached. Working together with drug and alcohol agencies and attending numerous Crown Court hearings as a referral to residential treatment was arranged, consumed considerable amounts of professional time and attention. The Crown Court judge, well versed in the therapeutic nomenclature of drug and probation reports, acceded to the final adjournment pending admittance. However the debilitating strain of remaining drug and alcohol-free proved too great and tragically she absconded and shortly thereafter died from an overdose in very disturbing circumstances. When I collected her personal belongings from HMP Holloway to pass onto family members, she had written on a scrap of paper. "Tell Mike that I will not let him down this time"! 

The shifting political and managerial environment manifested most clearly in the introduction of tightened national standards, diminution of professional autonomy and greater national accountability to government began to impact. For many this was detrimental to the service's core professionalism and foundational ethos, more particularly with the undue emphasis on the management of supervision rather than the content, with a shriller emphasis on the macho-correctional language of offender management and the removal of the word 'probation' from court orders, foreshadowed with the inauguration of the National Probation Service in 2001. The "triune dicta" of enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection, enshrined in the NPS objectives strap line, reframed from "advise, assist and befriend" ,was augmented by a programme of wholesale computerisation, standardised offending behaviour programmes and ever more desk bound, office-centric laborious assessment tools. 

I worked as a probation officer through some turbulent political times and will readily admit to a considerable degree of occupational dissonance with the introduction of some of the target fixated coercive managerial imperatives that disfigured the workplace, demoralised probation workers, as well as the insidious attenuation of the probation identity meshed within the dominant prison-centric penal command and control world view of NOMS. The amount of time spent in front of computer screens compiling routine risk assessments remains perversely disproportionate. The demographic profile of probation staff has changed and the contemporary probation culture is certainly more diverse. The role of trade unions in probation and in particular Napo has been for me a powerful and tenacious influence in helping me to understand, respond and cope with many of the changes alluded to above.

It seems that the present Transforming Rehabilitation proposals if enacted will fast become a legislative bludgeoning engine intent on dismantling probation and offering in its place a largely fissiparous mix comprising a skein of lowest bidders and corporate raiders. This will almost inevitably undermine and fragment a service that already works best in cooperation and in multi-agency partnerships, that has at its heart a commitment to working holistically, with a resilient belief in the possibility of motivated change and reparative action. At a time of reduced resources the service helps to reduce the harms of offending at the local level in communities blighted by crime. Probation has made a unique contribution to criminal justice and although many would argue that it has lost much by way of its traditional roots, professionalism and identity, it still merits its place at the centre of any rehabilitative revolution. Arguably it has long been transforming rehabilitation. Let us hope that it can find its voice again?

Mike Guilfoyle, former Probation Officer and Associate Member of Napo

A Turning Point?

Isn't it extremely worrying that in this interview with David Gauke for Inside Time, the only mention of probation is in the context of bloody tagging:-

David Gauke Interview: ‘This is a turning point’

David Gauke’s review was the blueprint for last month’s Sentencing Bill. In an interview with Inside Time he gives his verdict on the Government’s plans

David Gauke thinks he has started something big. His ideas for changing the way sentences in England and Wales are served have been adopted by the Government and brought before Parliament last month. They ought to stem the month-by-month increase in prisoner numbers which has brought the prison system to the brink of crisis. But he wants to go further.

“I don’t see why the UK –England and Wales alongside Scotland – should have a prison population that is so much bigger than the rest of Western Europe, and so much bigger than was the case 30 years ago,” he tells me.

“I would like to think, maybe, that the review I chaired is a turning point, but it’s certainly not the completion of the process. I would like to see the prison population smaller than it is today, not larger. That’s never going to be something that can be achieved very quickly, but I think there’s an argument there to be won.”

The Sentencing Bill brings major changes. Most prisoners will serve only one-third of their term behind bars; most prison-leavers will wear tags whilst on licence; and most sentences of less than 12 months will be served in the community. It has been a long time in the making.

Capacity crisis

Since the Covid pandemic, the prison population has risen by 10,000, and it is still rising. Causes include more people held on remand, more recalled while on licence, but chiefly ‘sentence inflation’ – the trend for politicians and judges to make jail terms longer and longer.

At times in the past couple of years, there have been only a few hundred free places left in men’s jails. Successive governments have been forced to introduce unpopular early release schemes to ensure there are still places free for new arrivals.

Labour’s 2024 election manifesto promised a review of sentencing. In office, the party followed through on its pledge. Conscious that making punishments more lenient is never popular with voters, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer appointed a Conservative to lead the review. Giving the reforms a gloss of cross-party unity could only limit political fall-out.

The man selected was Mr Gauke. As justice secretary in Theresa May’s Tory government from 2018 to 2019, he had tried to stop people from being sent to prison for just a few months – but failed. Now he would have greater leeway to find radical solutions to the capacity crisis.

A numbers game

Mr Gauke was asked for a set of proposals which could reduce the prison population by 9,500. His report, published in May, went a bit further. It contained recommendations which he said would, if made law, lower the number of prisoners by 9,800.

But there’s a big ‘if’ in that sentence. The Sentencing Bill presented to Parliament last month includes many of Mr Gauke’s ideas, but some have been dropped and others watered down, leaving a package which the Government claims will reduce prisoner numbers by just 7,500. This, by ministers’ own admission, would not be enough to halt the rise in the prison population. But it would slow it down.

What does Mr Gauke think? “I am pleased that the Government is proceeding with the vast bulk of our recommendations,” he says. “Of course, there are some areas where they’re taking a slightly different approach to the one we outlined, but that’s only to be expected.

“I’m pleased to see a Government that is facing up to the realities of our present population and the need to address that in a strategic way, rather than trying to muddle through.”

Points of contention

One area where the Govern-ment has gone against Mr Gauke’s recommendations is prisoners serving Extended Determinate Sentences (EDS). Mr Gauke said they should benefit from an earlier release point, like those on fixed-term sentences. The Government rejected this.

Mr Gauke sees why, but believes ministers are wrong. “I do think there is a strong case for providing that incentivization for EDS offenders,” he says. “I can see that that is perhaps more politically sensitive than some of the other recommendations, given the nature of the offences that we are talking about. We live in a political world, but on the merits, I think our recommendation was fully justified.”

Another point of disagreement was on how the ‘earned release’ model will work. Mr Gauke recommended that well-behaved prisoners should serve one-third of their time, while those who behave badly should serve a maximum of two-thirds. The Government rejected this and says the badly-behaved should be eligible to have days added, via adjudications, until they end up serving their full term.

Mr Gauke sees a difficulty: “If, in practice, what we see is lots of offenders serving 100 per cent of their sentence, then you will have real problems in terms of the prison population. I just hope that those powers are used sparingly and proportionately.”

One particular concern, raised by Inside Time readers, is that prisoners might find their ‘earned release’ delayed if their prison does not offer enough courses or jobs for them to demonstrate progression. Mr Gauke is clear this should not happen: “As long as offenders do what they can, then they should be on track to be released a third of the way through.”

Fewer prisoners?

Among many Government announcements last month, the most eye-catching was that most prison-leavers will in future have to wear electronic tags. Mr Gauke is supportive. “The more that the general public can be reassured that those who are not in prison are being properly monitored in the community,” he says, “then, I think, the greater the public appetite will be for moving people out of prison.”

But he says probation must improve to cope with the extra demand: “Over the course of the review, I met people who were inside apparently because the monitoring wasn’t working, and not through their own fault – batteries running out, and matters such as this. I’d be very concerned if we were seeing a lot of evidence of that.”

Mr Gauke has worked closely with Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary until last month, even visiting Texas with her to see how earned release works there. He says: “I was impressed by her. She’s prepared to face up to some difficult decisions, and deal with longer-term problems rather than just what’s immediately in front of her.”

Regarding David Lammy, appointed last month as her successor, Mr Gauke sounds less certain: “I know David Lammy reasonably well and I’m confident that he’ll take forward this agenda and will want to be remembered as a reforming Lord Chancellor.”

I’m struck by Mr Gauke’s claim that his proposals can be a “turning point”, leading to a falling prison population, so I ask how confident he is. He hedges his bets, saying: “If we can get the probation service working, then I think there are grounds for optimism. But that is dependent upon getting the reoffending rate down – and, of course, resisting the temptation to extend sentences.”

More big ‘ifs’. When politicians stop demanding longer sentences and judges stop imposing them, then we really will be at a turning point.

Ben Leapman

Probation Under Pressure

Monday saw the Howard League hold an online discussion in their Spotlight series devoted to the government's Sentencing Bill. The event was hosted by Director of Campaigns, Andrew Neilson and the panel included: 

• Martin Jones, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation.
• Helen Schofield, Chief Executive of the Probation Institute.
• Tania Bassett, Napo National Official.
• Gaie Delap, a retired teacher who was jailed for her part in a Just Stop Oil protest and later recalled to prison because none of the electronic tracking devices available to the Ministry of Justice were small enough to fit her wrist.

The government has high expectations for its Sentencing Bill, now being scrutinised in Parliament, claiming that its measures will ensure prisons in England and Wales never run out of space again.

But what will this legislation mean for the probation service, which has faced many turbulent challenges over the course of the last decade and must now brace itself for more change?

With proposals that could see people being released from prison earlier in their sentences, combined with more electronic monitoring, changes to unpaid work, the imposition of restriction zones, and curbs on driving and attending public events, the Bill puts an even greater burden on a vital public service already grappling with huge caseloads. Will the promise of £700 million in additional funding be enough?

Decision Must Be Reversed

Lets return to this nonsense of photo graphing, naming and shaming offenders given Unpaid Work Orders, a process bugun of course by Louise Casey with her bloody orange tabbards. To many this appears to be part of a ham-fisted attenpt by the government to appease the rise of 'Reform'  This in the Guardian from last week makes it clear that opposition by criminal justice bodies is growing and I think many people will be expecting the matter to be addressed at the up-coming Napo AGM in Eastbourne by means of an Emergency Motion.  

Ministers plan to allow naming and shaming of offenders completing community sentences

Exclusive: critics say the move, part of the sentencing bill for England and Wales, would bring shame upon families of offenders

Ministers are pushing through powers to photograph, name and shame offenders who have been ordered to complete unpaid community work in England and Wales. The sentencing bill, now moving through parliament, will for the first time give probation officers “a legal power” to take and publish the names and pictures of individuals ordered by courts to tidy grass verges, litter-pick or scrub graffiti.

The move, pushed through by the government “to build confidence” in community sentences, has sparked concern that it could instead be used to humiliate and embarrass offenders’ partners and children.

Martin Jones, HM inspector of probation, said it could result in more offenders dropping out. He said: “I am very concerned about seeking to name and shame people undertaking unpaid work.

“I think it could act as a disincentive to rehabilitation and some may refuse to turn up. If offenders are turning up to do the work I do not see a reason why they should also have their images published, particularly when the evidence shows that reintegration back into communities and employment are key to preventing reoffending.”

Ian Lawrence, the general secretary of Napo, the probation officers’ union, said the change would bring shame upon families of offenders, particularly children. He said: “This proposed policy serves no value to the rehabilitation of offenders but could have potentially devastating effects on innocent family members, namely children.

“It seems to only serve as a form of humiliation, not just for the offender but those around them. It also could potentially place people on unpaid work at risk, especially if it involves those that commit sexual offending.”

It comes as the government plans to rapidly expand “community payback” as an alternative to custodial sentences, as part of a plan to divert offenders away from overcrowded prisons. Offenders can be sentenced to an “unpaid work requirement” (UWR) as a way to atone for crimes, under both community orders and suspended sentence orders.

The work can be imposed for between 40 and 300 hours and requires an offender, usually wearing a hi-vis jacket printed with the words “community payback”, to undertake projects within the local area.

According to a Ministry of Justice policy paper: “To build confidence in community sentences and increase the visibility and transparency of community payback, we will publish the names and photographs of individuals subject to an unpaid work requirement.”

Officials believe that publishing the names and photos of those subject to a UWR will demonstrate to the public that justice is being delivered. To do this, probation officers will be given “a legal power to take and publish the names and photographs of individuals subject to an UPW requirement”. The policy paper said: “During their initial appointment, practitioners will assess whether an individual’s circumstances pose a risk to themselves or others that justifies an exemption.”

Nearly 5m hours of unpaid work was carried out in the year to April 2024. A Ministry of Justice report into unpaid work last year found that many offenders felt “stigma and shame” because they were asked to wear hi-vis vests. The report said: “People on probation and supervisors thought, in particularly public areas, having to wear the branded high-visibility vests could impact compliance.”

The government announced plans earlier this month to hand out thousands more unpaid work orders as part of a plan to release criminals into the community on tags. A statement said: “This includes working with local authorities to determine how offenders could give back to their communities, whether by removing graffiti or cleaning up rubbish.”

Campbell Robb, the chief executive of Nacro, the social justice charity that works with offenders, said the government was making a grave mistake.He said: “Naming and shaming those on community payback doesn’t deliver justice. Instead, it risks pushing people further to the margins, making it harder for them to find work, rebuild their lives and move away from crime.

“Stable housing, access to recovery, employment opportunities and wellbeing services are proven to reduce reoffending. If we want to break the cycle, we must invest in people’s potential – not just punish their past.”

Some offenders will be exempt from having their names and photographs published. Officials said these exemptions would be set out in legislation at a later date. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Unpaid work forces offenders to publicly atone for their crimes and give back to the communities they have wronged. It is punishment that works.

“Through the sentencing bill, we will increase the visibility of this sentence even further and allow the public to see justice being served. Anyone who refuses to comply faces a return to court or even time behind bars.”