I didn’t leave probation because I stopped caring. In fact, the hardest part of leaving was how much I still cared — about the work, the people on my caseload, and the colleagues I was leaving behind. But by the end, I genuinely felt I had no choice. Self-preservation wasn’t a preference; it was a last resort. The research article “No Choice But to Leave” captures something I recognise deeply. It describes probation staff who remain loyal to the vocational ideal of the service long after the organisation itself has become unliveable. That was certainly true for me.
Staying Longer Than Was Healthy
Like many others, I didn’t walk away at the first sign of difficulty. I stayed. I adapted. I absorbed more work, more pressure, more emotional strain. I tried to remain positive and constructive, even as workloads grew heavier and the space to do meaningful probation work shrank. I raised concerns. I offered solutions. I kept telling myself that things would improve, or that my experience and commitment could somehow make a difference. Over time, though, the cost became impossible to ignore. Exhaustion stopped being temporary and became my baseline. The research talks about constrained voice — that sense of speaking up without being heard. That resonates. It’s not that opportunities to speak don’t exist on paper; it’s that repeated attempts to engage are met with managerial language, structural inertia, or quiet deflection. Eventually, you stop believing your voice matters.
When Values No Longer Fit the System
One of the most painful aspects was the growing mismatch between what probation claims to be and how it often operates in practice. The vocational ideal — supporting people to change, exercising professional judgement, building relationships — increasingly clashed with a target-driven, bureaucratic reality. The legacy of Transforming Rehabilitation still hangs heavily over the service. Market-style thinking, excessive performance management, and administrative overload have reshaped probation in ways that erode professional identity. It becomes harder to recognise yourself in the role you’re doing. This creates an internal conflict: you’re still committed to the people you work with, but less and less able to do right by them.
Guilt, Loyalty, and Letting Go
Leaving brought relief, but it also brought guilt. I think that’s important to say out loud. I felt guilty about the colleagues I left behind — people I respected, people who were also struggling, people who would now carry even more weight because someone else had gone. That guilt is powerful, and it keeps many people in post far longer than they should stay. But I’ve come to understand something else too: I am not responsible for the conditions that drove me out. Those conditions were not of my making, and I exhausted myself trying to work within them, challenge them, and remain constructive until the very end. The research describes this as complicated loyalty — loyalty not to the organisation, but to the profession and to colleagues. It’s a loyalty that sustains commitment, but also masks systemic harm. At some point, staying becomes a form of self-neglect rather than solidarity.
Exit as Survival, Not Failure
When people talk about probation staff leaving, it’s often framed as a resilience problem or a retention issue. But “No Choice But to Leave” makes clear what many already know: exit is often a rational response to sustained harm. By the time I left, I wasn’t choosing between staying and going. I was choosing between continuing at significant cost to my health, or stepping away to protect myself. In that sense, it didn’t feel like a failure. It felt like survival.
What This Should Make Us Ask
If experienced, committed practitioners are reaching the point where self-preservation is their only option, then the problem is not individual weakness. It is organisational. People aren’t leaving because they don’t care. They’re leaving because caring has become too costly — and because staying any longer would mean losing themselves in the process. That should concern everyone. I think I have paid a high price for choosing probation as a career. Too high really, if I consider the impact on my family. I am still struggling with dealing with the impact of what I had to deal with. I regret now that I didn't leave earlier than I did. I know I am not alone.
Anon
Thank you for your words. Very powerful, very clear; and sad to read.
ReplyDeleteIf I may quote & annotate a couple of segments for the benefit of some thick-as-mince, thick-skinned numpties out there who are basking in their ill-gotten gains.
1 - "People aren’t leaving because they don’t care. They’re leaving because caring has become too costly"
* Note 1 for so-called "Leaders" & beancounters & box-tickers: take note that "too costly" does NOT refer to cash or fiscal impact... it means the toll YOU have levied upon human beings, ravaging their physical, mental & emotional wellbeing.
2. "I think I have paid a high price for choosing probation as a career. Too high really, if I consider the impact on my family. I am still struggling with dealing with the impact of what I had to deal with. I regret now that I didn't leave earlier than I did. I know I am not alone."
Note 2: hmpps, moj, hmg, hmip, and every probation region - (a) YOU, collectively, are the cause of this very human catastrophe. (b) YOU, severally & in joint enterprise, are responsible for the current shitshow that is labelled 'probation service'. (c) YOU had every opportunity in the last two decades to make positive healthy choices for staff, for those the service supervises, for society and for the very service itself. (d) YOU all failed. And YOU failed regardless of your gongs & your salaries & your self-satisfied blather & your promotions or your platinum pension. YOU. FAILED. EVERYONE... not least of which YOU failed the poster of the headline submission and his/her caseload & colleagues & family.
The shitshow remains in production, a daily farce, but we must never ever forget why it's like it is, how it got there and who the enablers were/are.
It is terrible to read this situation I know many face it has to be said although it will not be published the parody which upset or triggered some defence was meant illustrate the nature of the leadership . It was not understood properly and it got ragged upon. However it is this sort of dismay that many face and it that parody management that ignore the state of the organisation just piling on. Until we collectively push back it will continue .
DeleteIn the CRC the pressure on operational managers was intense and HR support pulled away. This legacy of TR remains and means that SPOs, like myself, have to administer and manage complex sickness absences and wellbeing issues of colleagues in work. Add in civil service bureaucracy and long drawn out procedures and the mix means managers and leaders are micro managing staff wellbeing. A properly resourced HR function is required, without this I don't see much prospect for positive, sustainable change.
ReplyDeleteI retire early this May, over 33 years service.
Good luck you may w well need the rest. However the use of out source or housing of HR services and their required procedural approach has diminished care for hard working staff who become ill .
DeleteBoth of these comments underline something uncomfortable but unavoidable. What we’re describing here isn’t just burnout or disappointment, it’s prolonged exposure to organisational conditions that steadily strip people of agency, confidence and health. When staff talk about self-preservation, it’s because the system has normalised harm and then reframed leaving as personal weakness rather than a rational response.
ReplyDeleteThe second comment is important because it shows how this damage travels downwards and sideways. SPOs and middle managers are left holding responsibility without support, absorbing HR functions, managing sickness, wellbeing and risk in an environment shaped by TR’s withdrawal of infrastructure. That doesn’t create reflective leadership, it creates containment and firefighting. People end up managing decline rather than developing staff or practice.
Taken together, these experiences point to the same conclusion: this isn’t about a lack of commitment or professionalism at any level. It’s about an organisation that has been redesigned to operate without adequate support, realistic capacity or genuine care for those expected to hold it together. In that context, leaving early isn’t abandonment of probation values, it’s often the last way people protect what’s left of them.
If this service is serious about retention, wellbeing and quality, it has to stop individualising harm and start owning the conditions that make self-preservation necessary in the first place.
If we go back a couple of blogs, we had details of an instruction from the POA to their members about not undertaking certain functions and about a threat of collective action.
ReplyDeleteIndividuals are detailing difficulties in opposing change being implemented on an ad hoc basis and being isolated or being picked off.
The answer is simple and the difference between the POA and NAPO is startling.
There has been no communication from NAPO on issues that matter and the view of the Ostrich’s arse is not very motivational
It has been pointed out several times Napo is under disguise and does not function as it should. Poa great issued instructions and tries to lead staff to protect their terms. Napo along with senior management have extinguished any sense of their duty to staff. It has been tabled in some harsh posts yet there is not enough collective response to have impact. Sadly our situation is feeling more locked in as a result of the unions tacit agreed acceptance as to what happens to us. The driver of these abused comes from shared services HR sscl. The own the procedures. These are not actually published. They demand managers stick to timescale. Sickness for example triggers warning letters then trigger disciplinary proceedings triggered by absences or frequency. Managers have zero discretion. Result staff are bullied back early or encouraged to resign or face disciplinary. It bullies under a procedure. Napo are powerless the reps are poorly trained and fearful of reprisal. The national reps no longer exist and Napo would not help in local matters until a dismissal occured. It is all stacked against the staff.
Delete15 years in as a PO and could have written that myself. I felt it to my core reading that. I am at a crossroads. I have given so much of myself and so many unpaid hours over the years to do my best at work but feel like our purpose and meaning of our work is being eroded. Everything feels so much more transactional and box ticking. It feels like a culture of learned helplessness has been created since TR which is toxic. It feels like the message is as long as we skim over the cracks and make it look on paper like work is being done it’s like that’s good enough…. I’m not driven or motivated like that. I come to work to give my very best and as a result I am feeling increasingly disillusioned.
ReplyDelete* transformation: the act or process of transforming. the state of being transformed; change in form, appearance, nature, or character.
Delete@10:03 speaks of being "15 years in". That would mean a 2010 start, so it seems their experience of probation has only ever been during the more tumultuous years of the service, yet still they express their dismay thus: "It feels like a culture of learned helplessness has been created since TR which is toxic."
That speaks loudly & clearly to me about both the political expediency & utter recklessness of the catastrophic TR experiment that was visited upon probation.
An utter failure posing as 'success', a dereliction of public duty through which ongoing abuse is still being perpetrated & imposed upon probation staff, those subject to supervision and the communities in which we live.
I imagine the architects & lickspittles of TR have alreay re-written history, telling the world that "transformation" doesn't, in & of itself, mean improvement; that they simply created a "framework for change" which *others* have subsequently misinterpreted, misused & corrupted.
That would help explain the ever-upward rise of romeo, rees, copple, farrar, et al.
From InsideTime:-
ReplyDeleteThe Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) have been plunged into chaos after a controversial reform plan was shelved and their leader quit, citing personal reasons.
The reforms, championed by IMB National Chair Elisabeth Davies, would have seen volunteer prison monitors banned from pursuing individual prisoners’ complaints and barred from entering jails more than three times per week. However, the ideas prompted a revolt from chairs of local IMBs, who said they would prevent the watchdogs from scrutinising prisons effectively.
In December, Ms Davies resigned – and within a week the reform package was withdrawn.
In a statement, the IMBs said: “Our National Chair, Elisabeth Davies, is stepping down for personal reasons … She has described serving the IMB as a privilege, and is working closely with colleagues and the Ministry of Justice to ensure a smooth handover and continuity of leadership.”
A fuller explanation of the family situation which led to her departure was provided to IMB members and to Inside Time, but we are not reporting it out of respect for the privacy of Ms Davies and her family.
Every prison in England and Wales has an IMB, made up of local volunteers who monitor conditions at the jail, publish their findings in an annual report, and take up complaints on behalf of prisoners. The reform package had been worked on over the past 12 months by Ms Davies, who took up her role in 2023, and her colleagues in the IMB Secretariat – civil servants who co-ordinate the work of local boards.
The Boards are suffering from a shortage of volunteers, with 700 current vacancies. The Secretariat claimed the reforms, set out in a document called the Expectations Framework, would “improve the consistency and quality of monitoring across the organisation, provide greater clarity about expectations for both new and existing members and make the IMB more sustainable in a declining voluntary sector”.
Inside Time reported in November that among the controversial aspects was an instruction that IMBs should spend less time dealing with ‘apps’ – the forms submitted by individual prisoners seeking help with a problem.
Members were told that “The ‘taking of applications’ does not mean that a Board should fix or actively pursue the issue raised by the detained person.” A ‘template letter’ was distributed for Boards to send to prisoners, advising them that “the IMB role is not to sort out the problem”.
Another proposal was to set a limit that no prison should be visited by members of its IMB more than two to three times per week. This was said to be a safeguard against IMB members becoming too close to prison staff or governors. However, IMB chairs told Inside Time that it could prevent them from monitoring their prisons effectively – and dozens got together to oppose the changes.
On 17 December, Ms Davies wrote to IMB members stating: “The National Board met yesterday … and discussed the member feedback and representations about the Expectations Framework … While the underlying objectives have strong support, we recognise that most concerns relate to the prescriptive nature of the Framework.
“The National Board approved the Expectations Framework on a non-mandatory basis, but we acknowledge that some of the language may not have reflected that clearly. Today we have withdrawn the Expectations Framework so that it can be amended to address concerns and launched in the New Year.”
In a separate development, it emerged that the IMB at HMP Manchester has failed to produce annual reports, as required in law, for the past three years. A national IMB spokesperson said: “We acknowledge there have been challenges with publishing Manchester’s reports, caused by fluctuating board membership, which meant reports could not be completed for publication.”
Commentary found online [MARK L.’s Post] re-IMB press release in late 2025 (before the recent Davies resignation):
Delete"The IMB Press Office have now revised their resignation figures after challenge, and confirmed it is six - not five - IMB Members who resigned from the IMB at Downview.
Also, of the 4 new members who have been appointed to Downview, 2 of them aren’t even in the prison yet, as they have both deferred their start date until January 2026.
The IMB - with its ridiculous 'Don't Complain To Us' template letters due to be handed out to prisoners who raise complaints with the IMB from January - is in an existential crisis; the issuing of template letters and the refusal they represent to become involved in prisoner complaints, is going to be challenged in the High Court by judicial review once it begins, on the basis it is ultra vires the Prison Act.
Parliament bestowed on IMBs the statutory duty to hear complaints from prisoners, and it is not for the IMB to refuse to discharge the duty Parliament gave to them because the discharge of those powers is thought, by the IMB, to have become inexpedient; what an absolute mess the national IMB system has become."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzvrxyxnxo
ReplyDeleteJoan Scourfield understands why audiences find it extraordinary to see her hugging the man who caused her son's death.
As an SPO, I recognise every part of this thread. The idea that middle managers are “leading” anything right now is largely a fiction. Many are firefighting, absorbing HR work, managing sickness, risk and performance with inadequate tools, and doing so under constant pressure to keep the machine moving. That doesn’t create reflective leadership, it creates containment.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me most is the number of experienced staff describing resignation rather than anger. That’s the point at which people stop believing change is possible. When probation reaches a stage where committed practitioners either numb themselves or plan their exit, the damage is already done. No amount of rebranding, recruitment or process tweaking will fix that unless the organisation is willing to confront the conditions it has created and stop relying on individual sacrifice to mask systemic failure.
What’s being described here isn’t a morale problem, a bad year, or a failure of resilience. It’s managed decline. People are staying far longer than is healthy out of loyalty, guilt and professional identity, not because the organisation deserves it. Others are leaving quietly because they’ve reached the point where self-preservation is the only rational option left.
ReplyDeleteThe most alarming thing in these comments isn’t the anger, it’s the resignation. That’s what develops when staff learn, over time, that raising concerns goes nowhere, formal processes protect hierarchy rather than truth, and commitment is rewarded with more pressure instead of support. At that point, people don’t fight the system; they disengage from it.
If probation leaders, managers or union representatives are reading this, the challenge is simple: stop explaining why things are hard and start responding to what is actually being said here. This isn’t noise, negativity or whingeing. It’s a detailed account of why experienced practitioners are switching off or walking away. If there is no credible, collective response to this, not another consultation, review or statement, then the silence will be taken for what it is: confirmation that decline is not an accident, but a choice.
Does anyone know if you've been on long term sick leave on half pay and return to work for 2 months then take 1 days off sick what is the trigger point for going back on half pay? I had always thought it was 3 days?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that if you’ve already exhausted full pay and moved onto half pay, returning to work for a short period does not automatically restore entitlement. Until earlier sickness drops out of the rolling 12 months, any further sickness, even a single day, can put you straight back on half pay. you should ask HR for a written breakdown of your current sick pay entitlement and confirmation of how any further absence would be treated.
DeleteSurely this blog could be copied into the HMPPS AI that keeps been spoken (how much money has been poured in I hate to think!!) of to digest, analyse and evaluate all the themes, comments and research which has been referenced in this blog.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been following this blog for years and reading comments and views from those who are the frontline like me has afforded some comfort. However it’s got to the point now where the bond you form with colleagues (which lets face it is probably trauma bonding) simply isn’t enough.
A week or so ago I watched the parliamentary video of Jo Farrar and co being grilled. The questions and challenge given by the panel was spot on…. But the answers Jo gave amongst others the head were terrible and it made me think what hope do we have of anyone listening and taking our service seriously when they just ramble and avoid a direct answers.
The probation service is in an absolute mess, we are not providing a quality service, why can’t they just be honest! I know there is lots of amazing practice and work that happens everyday but the HMIP reports show a consistent pattern of not keeping others safe. We need to go back to basics, remind everyone what are values are as a service, get back the aspiration to provide the best, not just “good enough” - most people who join the service are caring and conscientious … create an environment which allows that and allows us to feel aligned to our core values. We get ignored and ignored for external reward like pay rises so at-least let us work in a way that gives intrinsic reward!
Reasons to be fearful, part 3:
ReplyDeleteIs everybody enjoying their open plan offices? A Harvard Study identified that the 'open space' office is not for collaboration.
"The modern office blueprint is actually based on Jeremy Bentham’s 18th-century concept called the «Panopticon.»* ... You are not sitting in a creative hub; you are sitting in a surveillance architecture designed for maximum control per square foot... When you are visually exposed from all angles, your amygdala triggers a low-level threat state... if you can be tapped on the shoulder at any moment, you are just available inventory...You are not tired at 5 PM because of the workload; you are exhausted because your auditory cortex has been fighting a defensive war against noise for eight hours... You are being farmed, not managed."
* A Panopticon is an architectural concept for an institutional building, most famously a prison, designed by Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century, featuring a central watchtower from which guards can observe inmates in surrounding cells without being seen, inducing self-discipline through the uncertainty of constant surveillance.
Reading this as someone still working in the probation service, I can only say how deeply it lands. What you’ve written articulates what many of us feel but struggle to say out loud — partly because there never seems to be a safe or meaningful space to do so.
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are still here haven’t stayed because things are fine. We’ve stayed because of the same loyalty you describe: to the work, to the people we supervise, and to the colleagues sitting beside us who are carrying the same impossible loads. Caring is still what gets us through the day — and, paradoxically, what is wearing us down.
The feeling of having no real choice is already familiar, even for those who haven’t yet left. Many of us recognise that slow narrowing of options: adapting, absorbing, keeping going, telling ourselves we can hold on a bit longer. We speak up where we can, often carefully, often repeatedly, and too often into a void. The language of wellbeing and support exists, but the reality is relentless pressure, shrinking professional space, and a growing gap between what probation claims to be and what it has become.
It matters that we acknowledge managers in this too, because from where l stand, they are as trapped as anyone. Many are trying to shield staff, meet impossible demands, and keep services afloat within systems they did not create and cannot fix. The strain runs right through the organisation, and it shows.
What is hardest is knowing that people are already weighing up exit not as a career move, but as self-preservation. That staying may eventually come at too high a cost — to health, family, and identity. I don’t see clear solutions either. From inside, it often feels as though the choices are limited to enduring harm or stepping away.
So please know this: your decision is understood. Your honesty matters. And to everyone still here — practitioners, managers, administrators — doing their best in a probation service that feels increasingly dysfunctional and, at times, abusive towards its own staff: you are seen. You are not failing. If you reach the point where leaving becomes the only option, that is not weakness. It is survival.
I think they want to get rid of community offender management altogether and it's been a planned slow kill for decades. They knew they were never going to make money from offenders by splitting the service into NPS and CRC-it was just about getting rid of staff-first CRC staff and by bringing it back together they want to get rid of more of the remaining staff- they let NPS have it relatively easy for a few years with all the CRC cases gone then hit them with a huge unmanageable caseload that completely changed the enti
ReplyDeletere way they had worked up to that point and destroyed any work/life balance they had been used to up with the goal of making them leave. I think ultimately they want to shrink the amount of cases probation manages, bring in AI and electronic monitoring, have Police do the community management and have cases report directly to Igneus and other agencies on release and have POs or rather the cheaper lower skilled less educated PSOs working just from the prison estate setting things up for an offender's release. All these recruitment campaigns are just to keep a conveyor belt workforce until the decision is made to get rid of community management and these staff are easily disposable because of the short time they will have worked for probation.. They have to want to get rid of office based case management in the next few years
or otherwise everything they're doing doesn't make much sense..