It's good to see work continues to make the case for a different probation model and it must be hoped that Members of Parliament, the MoJ and HMPPS take careful note:-.
Napo and WCCSJ set out a new vision for probation in Wales
Napo joined Welsh Government representatives and academic partners at the House of Lords to make the case for a standalone probation service for Wales separate from prisons, embedded in communities, and built around skilled professional relationships.
Welsh Minister Mark Drakeford was joined by Ella Rabaiotti, from the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice (WCCSJ), and Napo’s Su McConnel, at a December meeting in the House of Lords focussed on the proposals to devolve Policing, Probation and Youth Justice.
Minister Drakeford gave an overview of the Welsh Government position and an update about developments in Youth Justice and Policing, before handing over to members of Wales Probation Development Group, part of WCCSJ. Ella Rabaiotti and Su McConnel presented a summary of a new model for probation in Wales. The recently published model builds on research and expertise outlined in earlier published papers “Towards a Devolved Probation Service in Wales”.
Su McConnel informed the meeting that the model of a Welsh Probation Service proposed in this publication would see “A standalone Probation Service, not within the civil service, and separate from Prisons, contributing to Welsh Government social policy and justice objectives. This Welsh Probation Service would be embedded in its communities, close to families and working with, and commissioning, local services and groups. It would impact on the prison crisis and reduce re-offending, be closely linked to courts, see increased restorative justice work, and foster relationships with the voluntary sector”
Former probation officer, Ella Rabaiotti, now a senior lecturer at Swansea University, emphasised the importance of highly skilled engagement between the probation practitioner and service user as central to reducing re-offending. “We know what works” she said, “and research confirms the centrality of a good professional relationship to potential success in Probation and in the absence of such a relationship, most if not all interventions would not be realised”
The small but influential group of Lords attending listened closely and asked searching questions.
Later, Mark Drakeford said “Many thanks to Baroness Ilora Finlay for calling together members of the House of Lords with an interest in the devolution of criminal justice to Wales, and particularly the probation service. The case for devolution is already made. What we are focused on now is demonstrating the positive difference devolution would make. Nowhere is that more evident that in the probation service. The House of Lords events brought together practitioners, academics and law-makers to affirm the case for a locally-based service, rooted in the courts and the communities which it can serve’.
Ella Rabaiotti said “ The Wales Probation Development Group remain keen to collaborate broadly, including with policy makers, probation allies, and particularly Napo members and probation practitioners to develop this model further”
Su McConnel commented “nothing proposed in our joint work with WCCSJ would not apply, broadly across England as well as Wales. The devolution debate allows us to reconsider models for a future Probation Service”
Su McConnel informed the meeting that the model of a Welsh Probation Service proposed in this publication would see “A standalone Probation Service, not within the civil service, and separate from Prisons, contributing to Welsh Government social policy and justice objectives. This Welsh Probation Service would be embedded in its communities, close to families and working with, and commissioning, local services and groups. It would impact on the prison crisis and reduce re-offending, be closely linked to courts, see increased restorative justice work, and foster relationships with the voluntary sector”
Former probation officer, Ella Rabaiotti, now a senior lecturer at Swansea University, emphasised the importance of highly skilled engagement between the probation practitioner and service user as central to reducing re-offending. “We know what works” she said, “and research confirms the centrality of a good professional relationship to potential success in Probation and in the absence of such a relationship, most if not all interventions would not be realised”
The small but influential group of Lords attending listened closely and asked searching questions.
Later, Mark Drakeford said “Many thanks to Baroness Ilora Finlay for calling together members of the House of Lords with an interest in the devolution of criminal justice to Wales, and particularly the probation service. The case for devolution is already made. What we are focused on now is demonstrating the positive difference devolution would make. Nowhere is that more evident that in the probation service. The House of Lords events brought together practitioners, academics and law-makers to affirm the case for a locally-based service, rooted in the courts and the communities which it can serve’.
Ella Rabaiotti said “ The Wales Probation Development Group remain keen to collaborate broadly, including with policy makers, probation allies, and particularly Napo members and probation practitioners to develop this model further”
Su McConnel commented “nothing proposed in our joint work with WCCSJ would not apply, broadly across England as well as Wales. The devolution debate allows us to reconsider models for a future Probation Service”
I’m all for a standalone Probation Service outside the Civil Service and away from Prisons, but this proposal isn’t that. It’s an academic fantasy dressed up as reform, a charity-flavoured community project that would fold the second it meets real cases, real risk, and real accountability.
ReplyDeleteThe weaknesses are glaring. Theory masquerading as practice. It’s soaked in desistance buzzwords and glossy notions of “rehabilitation via relationship” but says nothing about how you deliver that with caseloads, safeguarding, breach, MAPPA, courts, or inspections breathing down your neck. It’s a preview of what happens when you let academics hunting for research projects set the agenda instead of practitioners who actually deal with the consequences when things go wrong.
Reality cannot be conveniently erased. Probation currently struggles to meet basic supervision and risk demands. Yet we’re supposed to believe a looser, community-commissioned, under-powered model will somehow outperform the system we already have? It’s delusional.
Devolution and Local commissioning sounds innovative until you face the obvious, that capability, resources and political affiliation differ wildly between areas. That isn’t reform, it’s structural unfairness baked in.
The Third sector as a replacement for statute is ridiculous. NGOs and charities are brilliant supplements in some scenarios but to be presented as the backbone of supervision, standards, and accountability, means we’ve downgraded rehabilitation and public protection to a voluntary arrangement. That’s reckless.
My major concern is Academics in the cockpit, while practitioners are passengers. The process elevates theorists, think-tankers, and policy entrepreneurs, while sidelining the only people who’ve actually managed risk, supervised cases, and carried responsibility in court. When the service was collapsing, academics observed it and think tanks supported it, they didn’t help it yet now they want to design its future.
The goal of independence is solid. The model being touted is not. It’s utopian, lightweight, untested, and structurally naïve, perfect for seminars and keynote speeches, but will be disastrous for the frontline.
Let’s remember what was said in this post, a sober reminder of what happens when the people steering probation focus on anything except what actually matters:
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/sobering-reflections.html?m=1
Couldn’t agree more. Though I doubt it’ll be a popular view here, where names seem to trump common sense. The ambition for probation independence is solid, but the model here is flimsy, academic, and structurally naïve. Probation needs statute and competence, not buzzwords and volunteerism. There’s already better working models in Scotland and Ireland, where probation officers are social workers, let’s follow those instead.
Delete“Probation as social work” was mentioned here https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/10/mic-drop.html?m=1
Delete"research confirms the centrality of a good professional relationship to potential success in Probation"
DeleteBundles of research confirms when certain practices and behaviours are demonstrated by the probation officer within the one to one supervisory relationship reoffending is dramatically reduced ...yet what do we have now? Desistence based conversations delivered over a few sessions, one to one toolkits with tick boxing, recording, performing measures and an overly punitive system all dressed up as "risk management"....we need another way.
I agree with 08:18. Doing a stint in probation decades ago or running a few chats with practitioners doesn’t qualify anyone to redesign the service from scratch. The lead figure is politically and Napo-aligned, which explains the momentum but not the merit. If this is the big idea for probation’s future, it’s a depressing prospect, and likely to be binned the moment the Reform nasty party gets its hands on Wales.
ReplyDeleteThe ambition for independence is right. The model isn’t.
ReplyDeleteThis proposal is built around how probation ought to feel, not what it is legally required to do. There is no serious account of statutory authority, risk ownership, consistency, or who carries responsibility when things go wrong.
Relationships were never the problem. Accountability, enforcement and public protection are the hard realities this paper sidesteps.
Independence without statute, operational competence and practitioner leadership isn’t reform. It’s shifting risk onto the frontline and calling it innovation.
Constructive debate would be helpful here. This blog, and thank you from the bottom of my heart for it Jim, has at its core the voice of practitioners and those loyal to the profession. It has also served as a place where the gagged and professionally traumatised can express their rage and grief. I've done that many a time. That is what it is, but I'd suggest Probation is not well served by us shooting down in flames any attempt to make any progress towards an improvement in the current woeful situation.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t see anyone being “shot down in flames” just people testing ideas. If anything, that’s healthy. Progress needs scrutiny and challenge, otherwise risk politely nodding along to flimsy proposals. Let’s keep the discussion open rather than policing the temperature. Constructive disagreement isn’t the enemy here.
DeleteI don’t think robust challenge is the same as shooting ideas down. If anything, scrutiny is the only way any proposal earns credibility with a workforce that has lived through repeated “improvements” that made things worse. Practitioners are rightly wary of models that sound hopeful but gloss over statute, risk ownership and accountability.
DeleteConstructive debate doesn’t mean suspending criticism out of goodwill. It means testing ideas against reality, not protecting them from it. If a proposal can’t withstand that, it isn’t progress yet.
Wales cannot lead on national or local. By virtue of change the past is gone new becomes the development. Old isn't necessarily the best fit for today's problems which have changed.
ReplyDeletehttps://insidetime.org/newsround/government-u-turns-on-plans-to-name-and-shame-people-doing-unpaid-work/
ReplyDeleteThe Government has abandoned a controversial plan to publish the names and photos of people sentenced to do unpaid work in the community.
DeleteThe proposal would have seen people convicted of minor criminal offences having their cases publicised by the Probation Service and possibly exposed in local newspapers.
The plan was unveiled last September by then-justice secretary Shabana Mahmood as she published the Sentencing Bill, which also reduces the time most prisoners will serve in custody before release. The Ministry of Justice said in a press release at the time: “Publishing the names and photos of those subject to an unpaid work requirement will demonstrate to the public that justice is being delivered and increase the visibility and transparency of community payback.”
Scrapping this plan is quietly telling. It was never about rehabilitation or public confidence, it was about optics and punishment theatre. Naming and shaming people doing unpaid work would have increased hostility, risk to staff, and disengagement, while adding nothing to compliance or desistance. Probation doesn’t fail because the public can’t see enough humiliation. It fails because it’s under-resourced, over-controlled and stripped of professional judgement.
DeleteDid we not say it here? You’ll need to take some credit for this Jim - more clout here than at Napo!!
DeleteGuest Blog 104: Humiliation as a Policy!
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/09/guest-blog-104.html?m=1
Unfortunately many academics that pontificate on what needs to done to be effective in probation, don’t have any practical experience in the role of a registered probation officer. Many of them have limited life experience sitting in university buildings since they graduated, a similar profile to many who will be recruited in the next cohort of trainees. Even when they conduct research it is undertaken in sterile conditions with chosen offenders or prisoners in custody. Then all of a sudden they become the chosen one, the guru, the expert in their field and probation management throw a fortune at them and everyone is then expected to use their risk assessment guidance and to deviate is frowned upon. There is very little research done which includes those in the front facing operational roles and a reliance is placed on the previous experiences normally limited of the new managerial cohort. If you want to get probation to be effective engage with those at the frontline not those sitting in offices building a teams empire. Listen to the frontline staff, reduce caseloads, provide appropriate office space and facilities such as IT that works. Pay staff the going rate, be transparent in what is going on with the various reviews ask for input. Generations change, practice has to change to keep pace, what worked twenty years ago may not be as effective as previously. Develop a unit of forward thinking knowledgeable and experienced staff who can identify how to take things forward which is subject to rotation every three years to introduce fresh thinking and views. It is not hard but we are working in 1984 conditions, the IT spy in the machine that is watching your every move through the keyboard , reporting back the non-movement of they board for five minutes. You will need to log comfort breaks next!
ReplyDeleteNews for you mate they can already monitor keyboard time and they know how long your rest breaks are . All those corridor chit chats with another coffee and second fag all add up.
DeleteThis hits an uncomfortable truth. Too much probation policy is designed by people who never carry risk, never stand in court, never sit across from someone whose life is unraveling. Evidence matters, but so does context, responsibility and consequence. Research that doesn’t meaningfully involve frontline practitioners isn’t neutral, it’s incomplete. If probation wants to improve, it needs fewer frameworks imposed from above and more listening to those doing the work under scrutiny every day.
DeleteLet’s be clear. Most managers aren’t live-monitoring keystrokes, but the systems do log activity and that data can be pulled when it suits. Staff know this.
DeleteThe issue isn’t paranoia, it’s power. An organisation that runs on unpaid hours and goodwill while retaining the ability to retrospectively scrutinise “inactivity” creates fear, not professionalism.
If leadership wanted accountability, they’d resource the job properly. Surveillance fills the gap where trust and competence are missing.
Keep breaching and recalling and adding to prison. Population what your best at
ReplyDeleteThere's always someone willing to make space:
Delete"Police are searching for an inmate who failed to return to prison after being temporarily released for an approved work placement.
Josh Hosker, 43, was due to return to HMP Haverigg on 8 January after attending a work duty commitment off-site and is unaccounted for, Cumbria Police said.
Hosker was jailed for eight years in 2019 for committing a child sex offence, but the force said he was not considered a risk to others.
Det Supt Vicki Coombes said Hosker was last seen in the Sedbergh area and urged anyone who knows where he might be to contact police.
A prison service spokesperson said: "Prisoners who fail to return following temporary release face strict punishments, including a return to a closed prison and being prevented from moving to open conditions for up to two years." "
Front line practitioners and managers and service users need to be involved.
ReplyDeleteLet’s be clear. Most managers aren’t live-monitoring keystrokes, but the systems do log activity and that data can be pulled when it suits. Staff know this.
DeleteThe issue isn’t paranoia, it’s power. An organisation that runs on unpaid hours and goodwill while retaining the ability to retrospectively scrutinise “inactivity” creates fear, not professionalism.
If leadership wanted accountability, they’d resource the job properly. Surveillance fills the gap where trust and competence are missing.
So wrong . Managers do not manage or monitor key time. The IT department does some sampling . When the shit hits the fan and should it get heavy end keystroke assesment is done to see if compliance to attending the job is within the expected required input timing. If not and it becomes necessary they could use it to show negligence but they won't let this secret monitoring out the bag in any way soon.
DeleteDon’t worry, the Inspectorate continues to insist that the service has lots of excellent managers………………………should you tell them, or should I.?
ReplyDeleteSenior probation leaders have failed. Full stop.
DeleteThis week’s headline said it all: “Horror moment knifeman runs around probation office with blades & fake gun after stabbing worker”. A man walks in calm, waits for his meeting, then pulls knives and attacks staff. That should have triggered emergency reform, not PR damage control.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37890989/knifeman-probation-office-blades-gun-stab-worker/
The official response? Don’t watch or share the footage because it may harm “wellbeing”. Please. It’s already national news. The Sun distributed reality; leadership distributed denial.
Guest Blog 107 already named the culprits: managers, senior leadership, HMPPS, the Justice Minister. The fixes are not complicated, cap caseloads, raise pay, enable social work training upgrades, separate from police, prisons and the civil service, divert the £700m tech vanity project. Basic stuff, unless you’re paid to look away.
Instead we get “enhanced safety measures” with no security guards, no secure buildings, no staffing relief, and no pay. Safety by PowerPoint. Protection by euphemism.
And no, the Welsh model won’t save us, a so called Napo and WCCSJ new vision for probation in Wales. As someone put it: “we don’t need an academic fantasy dressed up as reform…”
Leadership must either face reality or leave. That goes for Napo leadership too. The frontline already has.
https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2025/12/guest-blog-107.html?m=1
Calling this service “well led” while staff are stabbed at work is obscene. If HMIP can watch this happen and still praise leadership, it has stopped inspecting reality and started protecting power. This isn’t excellence, it’s institutional complicity in failure.
DeleteJust because I found it interesting, and the notion of literature and drama having a powerful ability to change concepts and opinions is warming.
ReplyDeleteThere is another way, it just needs a wider audience, and that can only happen if all the actors and players who have a role to play start shouting louder, and start singing from the same song sheet.
https://insidetime.org/ray-says/past-times-past-crimes/
'Getafix
Drama always changes public opinion Kathy come home jumps out as a start. Anything bleasdale. Dixon of dock green tried to moralise the corrupted police . War horse theatre production impossible not see the whole audience moved to tears. However the nature of the widest if crimes have dried up sympathies for the old idea of good soft but run astray . No one wants resources on sex molesters of children . Wrapping them in mental health gives them a status. No one has sympathy for street robbery and want them jailed or worse.
DeleteReally interesting as always Getafix. In the whelter of social injustice that we live in currently, it would be hard to -even with a compelling narrative- swing public mood towards a compassionate and positive look at the stories of "criminals" given the other "more deserving" groups we are also encouraged to villify and fear. Although the same would be true in Dickensian times of course. Hmmm
ReplyDeleteweasel is as weasel does
ReplyDelete"Press Association Reporter
Thu, 15 January 2026 at 11:17 am GMT
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said she has sacked Robert Jenrick as shadow justice secretary and kicked him out of the party due to “irrefutable evidence that he was plotting in secret to defect in a way designed to be as damaging as possible” to his Conservative colleagues."
oh dear.
"I have just been on the phone with a shadow cabinet minister who said "it’s like something from The Thick Of It" because, they claimed, Jenrick "left his resignation speech printed out and hanging around" and "someone got hold of it".
DeleteThis shadow minister added that he had sat next to Jenrick at yesterday’s meeting of the shadow cabinet and "he was playing nicely, I had no idea".
At a recent Tory away day, I am told, he had also been "contributing normally" with no indication a defection might be imminent.
So why has this happened?
"He has been overwhelmed by personal ambition in a Macbeth type way" his former colleague claimed.
"Kemi is getting better and his ambition wasn’t being sated. And he’s lost his mind."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/crmdmkg8gymt
I accept we read and experience whats being shared in different ways. I also acknowledge, I’ve been retired 10 years and do not speak from experience. Personally, I was pleased to read the tweet titled ‘there is another way. ’ Having read most , if not all of these blogs/comments over recent months this, felt hopeful and refreshing. In stark contrast with hugely significant, impactful, profound and poignant voices being expressed here.
DeleteI was pleased on opening the blog, that I recalled reading the Report a while back and also watching ES Roberts Plaid Cymru proposing the amendment during the 2nd reading of the Sentencing Bill. However naive I maybe, I hoped/prayed even that this aspiration of a devolved Probation Service might happen. I appreciate many commentators feel its contributors are out of touch and have little understanding of Probation today. But, I guess if the amendment were accepted then any complexities would be worked out.
I hope there are some common and shared hopes and aspirations. The separation from the Prison Service and to re-establish Probations autonomy and re-build integral links with local communities and safety/crime reduction partnerships. Further, a desire to separate from the bureaucratic managerialism and the stranglehold of the Civil Service and to put back rehabilitation into the very heart of ALL that you do across ALL aspects of your work
I appreciate there would be so much more to do and acknowledge the legitimacy of those critiques who suggest that this will simply not work. This require further debate/dialogue. Further, whilst I accept it may have been many years ago, when these major contributors were either practitioners and or senior managers in Probation, they do have a wealth of knowledge, experience and a fundamental belief in Probation and its guiding principles. Several known to me were integral, alongside Academics to challenging Graylings proposals. Further, far from not accounting for front line staff views, Deeming et al wrote a book titled Is Transforming probation the end of the probation ideal involving interviewing 1300 practitioners. Indeed, and possibly JB will recall the book also made reference to this blog.
Additionally, since the re-unification occurred and I accept probably commissioned by the MOJ there has been this study which is uncompromising in its conclusions .
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02645505231182822
And even more recently Nov 25 this was presented to HMPSS Public account committee meeting https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/151136/pdf/
I only share these documents because they appear to reflect what many of you are all saying. In the event of there being a Probation Review. Similar, to that of the Prisons maybe some of those who have far better articulated their thoughts and views on here, than I ever could, as previously suggested, submit those to the next Justice Review Committee meeting. Meanwhile, I would want to wish our Wales colleagues and those involved with this Journey all the very best . I would still encourage you all to write to your MP’s and do let me know if they respond. We have now connected with 11 MPs and whilst I have no evidence that they are actually listening, neither have they unfollowed despite numerous messages. Including this blog Iangould5
There is another way. This isn’t it. In fact some of the rhetoric reminds me of TR proposals.
DeleteI respect the hope in this and the intent behind it. Many of us share the same end goals: autonomy, separation from prisons, a return to rehabilitation and community-based practice. Where the tension lies is not with aspiration but with sequencing and realism.
DeleteThose of us still in the service are living with the consequences of reforms where “complexities would be worked out later”. Transforming Rehabilitation followed exactly that logic and it nearly broke probation. That experience makes people cautious, not closed-minded.
Debate is absolutely needed, but so is a hard test of whether any proposed model is legally robust, properly resourced, accountable and safe for staff and the public. Hope matters, but probation cannot afford another leap of faith.
Where the pay rise public protectors ?
ReplyDeleteExactly. Any serious conversation about reform that ignores pay, workload and safety is incomplete. You cannot rebuild probation on values alone while staff are underpaid, overworked and exposed to increasing risk.
DeleteRehabilitation requires stability. Stability requires fair pay. Everything else is noise.
There is another way...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj00pp70xvo
Gilby had accused the trust's chairman, Ian Haythornthwaite, of bullying and harassment.
In response, Haythornthwaite, working alongside three other directors, had set up Project Countess, to force Gilby out.
Gilby, 62, said one of the trust's directors, Ros Fallon, took her to a pub on a Friday afternoon in October 2022 and told her it was "time for you to go".
"She said: 'And if you don't agree to go, we will start a process against you'. She was unable to tell me what that process would be."
Gilby said she was initially offered a pay-off - the equivalent of 16 months of her salary - while she did "a non-job" with NHS England.
But she said the offer had a sting in the tail.
"I had to drop my concerns, drop my grievance, about the behaviours of Ian Haythornthwaite, and for me, that was an absolute red line.
"The idea that I would walk away and this would never be mentioned again, was absolutely unpalatable to me.
"I wouldn't have been able to live with myself knowing that I had taken effectively a bribe."
_ - _ - _ -
"It's had a devastating impact, if I'm honest," she says. "I've felt extremely isolated, and definitely feel that I am regarded as a pariah in the NHS. I think there is an unwritten rule that you do not take the NHS to court. You don't stand up and be counted. You take the bribe, you keep quiet and you move on."
Her hope now is that other people subjected to bullying and harassment will see the outcome of her case and have the courage to come forward and that "other organisations who are thinking of treating their employees in the way in which I was treated think twice."
Letters seen by the BBC show that Gilby's legal team tried to avert a court hearing, which would have saved a substantial amount of money.
The total cost to the NHS, to taxpayers, is estimated therefore to be around £3m.
In a brief statement, the Countess of Chester NHS Trust "the Trust can confirm that the employment tribunal has been resolved through a mutually agreed settlement."
"It's quite sickening to think that people with those values are able to get positions in senior positions in public bodies," she added.
Haythornthwaite resigned on the day the employment tribunal published its judgement.
Two other members of Project Countess, directors Fallon and Nicola Price, had left the trust by then and are no longer working in public life.
A fourth member of the Project, Ken Gill, has also left the trust.
He now has a role as a non-executive director of the Legal Aid Agency, a Ministry of Justice quango, for which he is paid between £10,000-£15,000, according to their annual report.
This is a sobering comparison. What this case illustrates is how public institutions often respond to challenge: isolate the individual, weaponise process, pay for silence, and quietly recycle senior figures elsewhere.
DeleteProbation staff recognise this pattern immediately. Grievances stall, whistleblowers are marginalised, and accountability rarely reaches those at the top. Without structural safeguards and consequences for leadership, changing the organisational model alone changes very little.
The lesson here is not just that “there is another way”, but that without accountability, transparency and protection for staff, every system eventually reproduces the same harms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l74eykxdo
ReplyDelete"A new funding scheme will give access to emergency cash for people on low incomes across England.
The Crisis and Resilience Fund beginning at the start of April will provide £1bn annually for the next three years.
People will be able to apply for emergency funds through their local council, whether or not they currently receive benefits.
The new rules say councils can give money to people in financial shock where there is "a sudden, unexpected expense or drop in income", like a broken boiler, the loss of a job or to prevent people from entering crisis.
It is a replacement for the temporary Household Support Fund which had been extended on a rolling basis since it was set up in 2021, but was due to finish at the end of March."
The current HSF scheme:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/household-support-fund-guidance-for-local-councils
"To be eligible for support you must:
have an immediate need
be a permanent resident in our area
be aged 16 and over and be responsible for the Council Tax liability
not have received a payment from the Household Support Fund in the last 24 months
not have a child who is eligible for free school meals
If your child gets free school meals, you will receive vouchers for school holidays and a contribution towards a clothing grant from the Household Support Fund.
As part of your application you must provide evidence of your household income and expenditure. This includes copies of bank statements and details of any outstanding debt."
https://thereasonableadjustment.co.uk/2025/12/27/probation-supervision-cuts/
ReplyDeleteMy sentence ended at midnight. That’s the personal milestone. The public-interest issue is bigger and uglier: Probation is stretched past breaking point, so it’s doing what any overloaded system does. It rations the service, rebrands it as a “model”, and hopes nobody asks what got cut.
DeleteThe numbers do not say “fine”
In October 2025, the National Audit Office reported that in 2024 to 2025 HMPPS met only 26% of its probation performance targets. It also found that HMPPS had underestimated the staff needed to deliver sentence management tasks by around a third, about 5,400 full time equivalent staff. That is not a minor planning error. That is a hole you cannot fill with optimism and posters about resilience.
This is happening while probation supervises a very large caseload. The Ministry of Justice’s offender management statistics show 244,209 people were under Probation Service supervision in England and Wales as at 30 June 2025. A service can’t be “high standards” and “mass supervision” at the same time if it’s missing thousands of staff.
HM Inspectorate of Probation has said it plainly too, warning that the service has too few staff, with too little experience and training, managing too many cases. If the watchdog is repeating itself every year, it’s because nobody with budget power is listening.
Reduced supervision is now baked into policy
Workload pressure is not just creating delays. It’s changing what “supervision” means. A published HMPPS and Ministry of Justice response (August 2024) describes “Probation Reset” measures that, in eligible cases, end active supervision after two thirds of the licence or community order period. The rationale is explicit: prioritise early engagement and concentrate limited staff time on the most serious cases.
That might sound tidy in a briefing note, but in practice it means many people are in the system, still subject to legal controls, yet receiving less active probation input in the final third. That is rationing, even if it’s wearing a lanyard that says “strategic prioritisation”.
How the 2024 summer riots fed the pressure
The criminal justice system’s capacity problems did not begin with the 2024 summer disorder, but the disorder poured petrol on a fire that was already burning. The House of Commons Library recorded hundreds being brought before the courts and noted that the fast charging and prosecution happened despite capacity pressures across the system.
Around the same period, emergency measures to manage prison capacity became more visible. The Law Society described the reactivation of Operation Early Dawn in August 2024 to manage worsening prison population pressures, explicitly linking it to longstanding capacity failures and recent outbreaks of far-right disorder.
Then came SDS40, an early release mechanism that shifted more sentence management into the community, with probation expected to carry the load. The Ministry of Justice publishes SDS40 release data covering releases from 10 September 2024 onwards. When more people are released on licence, supervision demand rises, and the system responds by triaging risk. The predictable outcome is reduced contact for lower risk cases, and a constant scramble to stop high risk cases from going wrong.
What The Reasonable Adjustment is doing next
We’ve got quite a lot planned for the Probation Service. Not vibes. Not rants. Evidence. We’ll be using inspection findings, published performance data, and Freedom of Information requests to map where supervision is being reduced, how decisions are justified, and what gets missed when a public body quietly changes the service it delivers.
If a public service is rationing supervision by policy, the public deserves to see the numbers, the trade-offs, and the consequences, in plain English.
"The Ministry of Justice’s offender management statistics show 244,209 people were under Probation Service supervision in England and Wales as at 30 June 2025"
DeleteA quarter of a million people under probation supervision is just an outrageous statistic regardless of the number of probation staff employed by the service.
For me, the government are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Recruiting more probation staff so they can facilitate subjecting more people to supervision is only growing the problem. Better to focus on how to reduce capacity and get people out of the CJS instead of locking them into it.
'Getafix
244,209 is more then the total population of Southampton!
DeletePersons supervised by the Probation Service at 31 March 2010 = 240,707
DeleteNot a lot has changed in terms of numbers subject to probation supervision, getafix, despite grayling's tr claims.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c3ce8e5274a1b0042269b/quarterly-probation-brief-q1-2010.pdf
In 2000, the annual total probation caseload (court orders and pre and post-release supervision) in the UK was approximately 175,000; and the probation caseload increased by 39% between 2000 and 2008, to 243,434.
And... In 2008, the total staff in England & Wales probation (including operational, admin, and management) was around 21,325, with about 14,654 being frontline staff.
Figures that have been posted here before which show tr did nothing but empty £half-a-billion from the taxpayer coffers into multinational privateers' pockets, & place probation under direct political & civil service control, firmly at the mercy of the incumbent government minister; clipping its independent wings, turning its staff into battery hens & cutting its professional throat.
ai says:
Delete"The number of offenders under Probation Service supervision has fluctuated over the last 25 years due to various policy and operational changes.
2000-2008: The number of offenders supervised by the probation service increased significantly, from approximately 126,000 at the end of 1993 to a peak of around 243,000 in 2008.
2008-2014: The caseload fell by about 7% from the 2008 peak to approximately 219,548 by June 2013.
2015-2020: The total caseload reached a series peak of 267,146 in 2016, but then decreased due to factors including the COVID-19 pandemic response, standing at 247,759 at the end of December 2019.
2021-2025: The caseload recovered to pre-pandemic levels and has remained relatively stable, with 244,209 offenders supervised as of June 30, 2025. This figure includes those on court orders and those supervised before or after release from prison."
Is there a breakdown of the 14500 frontline staff? Is that full time equivalent or just the number of Band 3 and Band 4? And of those, how many hold caseloads as there are hundreds of Band 3 and 4 in 'other' types of roles that are seen as the holy grail as they don't involve any actual work with offenders...
Deletehttps://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/Probation%20Resources%2C%20Staffing%20and%20Workloads%202001-2008%20revised%20edition.pdf
Delete"The numbers of all ‘operational’ staff involved in delivering or supporting work with offenders has increased by 32 per cent over the period from 2002 to 2007.
However, this increase masks the fact that the number of professionally qualified probation officers working with offenders rose by only 12 per cent.
Also the number of staff training to be probation officers has fallen, by 34 per cent. By contrast, there has been a 53 per cent rise in the number of probation services officers (PSOs), who are less qualified and less well paid than probation officers.
Managerial staff have also increased over the same period, by 70 per cent."
_________________________________________________
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e4d163de90e074dccbae77f/hmpps-workforce-statistics-dec-2019.pdf
"As at 31 December 2019 there were 2,534 FTE band 3 probation services officers in post, 3,445 FTE band 4 probation officers and 781 FTE band 5 senior probation officers"
_________________________________________________
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2010-01-21/debates/10012120000811/ProbationService
"In 2008-09, the probation case load was 197,000 on community orders and 46,200 ex-prisoners under supervision. To supervise them are 7,200 qualified and senior probation officers, 6,100 probation service officers and 6,950 managers and administrative staff."
_________________________________________________
Key Figures & Context (2025):
Total Staff: 21,022 (March 2025).
Probation Officers (Specific Bands, Sept 2025):
Band 3: 5,409 FTE.
Band 4: 5,576 FTE.
Band 5: 1,552 FTE.
_________________________________________________
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7yj0gkl3zo
reports in mid-2025 highlighted significant shortfalls, potentially up to 10,000 staff, with concerns about workload and chronic understaffing
Does that answer your question?
Those figures tell the whole story. Shortly the title po will morph to a homogenised grouping within the pso structure. Eventually it will be one grade the cheapest .
DeleteIt doesn't really answer the question as to get a real idea we need to know how many Band 4 PO's are working in roles that aren't case management and I doubt HMPPS even know themselves. If we don't have a full picture then it suggests we have more than enough PO's and PSO's for the numbers on our books and we should be supervising around 25ish each we we all know isn't the case. Maybe half the officers have been given roles monitoring all the bloody Dashboards and Spreadsheets...
DeleteThe data shows a 20 year pattern of replacing professional judgement with cheaper labour and heavier supervision. Once you redefine probation as compliance administration rather than skilled relational work, the logic always ends in homogenisation.
DeleteWhen experience becomes expensive and throughput becomes king, professional roles are not valued, they are engineered out. What we are watching is not reform, it is managed downgrade.
Probation does not help a log of people rather keeps them in a system which is not not helpful or trauma informed best as a last option no welfare support these days
ReplyDeleteThis is the tragedy. Probation used to reduce harm by stabilising lives through skilled relationships. What it increasingly does is manage churn through a depleted system that cannot offer what people actually need.
DeleteThat is not a failure of practitioners. It is the result of stripping out time, continuity and discretion. When probation becomes thin surveillance instead of supported change, it traps people rather than helps them move on.
Indeed where was the unions to protect the role . Our function has been eroded. Where is professional committee now then. They used to print guide CE advisories. Now we have an irregular bulleting from a despot. It's a miserable job now no joy no supporting role. No celebration of clients success just finger pointing.
DeleteI couldn't agree with you more 10:11....the probation service has purposefully de-invested in the supervisory relationship in preference of "risk management" plans, surveillance, monitoring and controls. They have either purposefully or naively de-coupled the "reduction of harm through stabilising lives through skilled relationships" from "risk management", preferring to see the two as distinct and mutually exclusive. Without both, so called risk management strategies dont work which has led over the past 5 years or so to a massive increase in recalls....and by failing to train or develop staff in relational skills and creating a fake distinction between "rehabilitation " and "risk management" staff practices have become overly punitive....license conditions have increased and the proportion of the caseload being assessed as high risk have also steeply increased.
DeleteThe service feels it can "outsource" rehabilitation to voluntary providers while reducing its own staff to "compliance monitors and control automatons"....it pays lip service to its own delivery of service by implementing one to one toolkits without even training staff to deliver them, while farming people off to "accredited programmes" all of which so far have been proven not to work. Meanwhile the service blatantly ignores its own failures as seen by the massive increase in recalls.
I once heard someone talk about an 'etcha sketch moment'.. when things are so messed up that the only real option is to shake the etcha sketch and start again... How close are we to this with probation, and the CJS in general
ReplyDeleteWhat is missing from much of this discussion is the most uncomfortable truth of all. This is no longer just a workforce crisis. It is a public protection crisis created by design.
ReplyDeleteFor twenty years the probation service has been systematically deprofessionalised. The data posted above shows exactly what has happened. Qualified probation officers barely increased while management layers expanded and cheaper grades multiplied. This is not modernisation. It is structural deskilling.
Risk is not reduced by dashboards, performance frameworks or remote monitoring. It is reduced by experienced practitioners who have time, continuity and professional authority to notice deterioration, challenge behaviour and intervene early. When those conditions are stripped away, risk does not disappear. It goes unseen.
High caseloads, constant churn and loss of experience do not simply exhaust staff. They narrow professional vision. Officers are forced into surface compliance work instead of deep assessment. Warning signs are missed not because people are careless, but because the system no longer allows careful practice.
This is how serious failures are manufactured. Not by one bad decision, but by years of organisational choices that make good decisions harder and harder to achieve.
Public protection is being weakened not by individual officers, but by a service that has been hollowed out and then told to pretend it is coping.
This is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome of treating probation as a cost centre rather than a safety-critical profession.
Not really probation only moved into risk graded assesment when it had to illustrate what it was doing. Moving away from psr pre court work assesment diversionary activity to managing risk levels. The pretence of a professional role went with it. The public need some sort of minimum qualification but that's all it is. The shift to pso roles for the majority of staff now is a clear indicator in 5 years growth of a non qualified work for e means you just don't need a qualification. For what exactly . I'm not anti anything but the role requires adminstration not much else to it. The days of engagement dependence and cooperation well gone . Any other positive in the role has to be hard to find .
DeleteProbation now criminalises more people than the cps , breach recall is the norm , keep people away from what is a toxic agency at all costs , risk ? Everyone deemed one it’s nonsense need to back to social work sack the staff and rehire social workers
ReplyDeleteIf your argument is we recall to much for petty reasons I fully agree, but we don't criminalise people, they already are criminals and are serving part of there custodial sentence (in the community). Recalling isn't criminalising them, but it is often pointless and serves no positive purpose, it's used more to protect Probation more than the public these days sadly...
DeleteCriminals ? You heard of labelling theory ? Probably not learned on the Mickey Mouse risk course
DeleteThinking about these arguments and going back to the blog post itself, the comment in the linked article in the NAPO Magazine makes a good point:
Delete“a sensible starting point is understanding what probation is before we redesign it into something it isn’t”
It will never go back just get used to this because the new staff adapt and this is all they know and won't resist.
DeleteIt’s doesn’t need to go back. It needs to work out what it needs to be. No more identity crisis.
DeleteIt is what it needs to be for now evolving to something else over time.
DeleteProbation is far from what it should or could be. That is for sure.
DeleteExactly. labelling theory looks pretty naïve in practice. “Don’t call me a criminal, prisoner, or offender”, yet here’s the same people selling books, giving talks, mentoring, even landing plush jobs, all while cashing in on the very label they claim to reject. Turns out, being labelled isn’t a life sentence… if you know how to monetise it. They even get to tell students and professionals what to do, because apparently “lived experience” is now a qualification!!
DeleteNot all, if done in a credible and intelligent way.
DeleteAcademic Insights - Embracing the views and perspectives of those with lived experience - David Honeywell
https://hmiprobation.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/document/embracing-the-views-and-perspectives-of-those-with-lived-experience/
Some of these responses prove the point rather than refute it.
ReplyDeleteSaying probation is now “just administration” is not an argument for deprofessionalising it. It is an indictment of what has been done to it. The role did not become shallow because society no longer needs professional supervision. It became shallow because the system stripped out time, continuity, training and judgement and replaced them with throughput and compliance.
Risk assessment did not kill probation’s professional role. Political and managerial misuse of risk did. Risk tools were meant to support judgement, not replace it. What has happened instead is that probation has been redesigned around organisational defensibility. Breach and recall are now used to manage institutional anxiety, not public safety. That is not professionalism evolving. It is professionalism being hollowed out.
The claim that qualifications no longer matter because the job has been reduced to process is precisely the danger. When a service downgrades its own skill base, it does not become safer. It becomes blinder. Complex human risk does not become simple because we simplify the workforce. It becomes more dangerous.
Equally, saying “it will never go back, so get used to it” mistakes damage for destiny. Services are not natural forces. They are shaped by policy choices. Probation did not drift into this position. It was driven here.
The issue is not nostalgia versus realism. It is function. Before redesigning probation into something new, we have to be honest about what it currently fails to do. A system that cannot retain expertise, cannot sustain relationships, and cannot see risk developing early is not evolving. It is decaying.
Until we stop normalising degradation as modernisation, we will keep arguing around the edges while the core function of probation continues to erode.
Yes probation needs honesty and clarity about what it was, is, and should be. That means examining the past, the present, what works, what doesn’t, and why it went wrong. But who will do that? Oh, yes our trusty managers, directors, the Chief Probation Officer, maybe even the Justice Minister themselves, what could possibly go wrong? Without a strong professional voice or union, nobody speaks for probation.
DeleteThe Wales initiative above? It doesn’t come close. At best, it’s a light-touch TR “fag packet” exercise of style over substance, nothing that actually addresses the rot nor realistically lights the way forward.
Exactly. The call for “honesty and clarity” always lands on the wrong people. It is never those who dismantled the service who are asked to define its future.
DeleteWe are told to have a mature debate about what probation was, is and should be, while the same leadership class that presided over its collapse is quietly positioned as the architect of its renewal. That is not reflection, it is institutional self protection. You do not ask the authors of failure to write the post mortem.
Without an independent professional voice, probation has no counterweight to power. The unions are muted, the profession is fragmented, and so the narrative is written from the top down. Frontline experience becomes “feedback”, filtered and managed, while strategic direction remains untouched.
And this is why the Wales proposal feels so hollow. It gestures at autonomy but ducks the hard questions about capacity, statute, risk, courts, safeguarding and accountability. It offers symbolism where the situation demands structural repair. Style without substance does not reverse systemic damage.
Real reform would start with this: those who broke probation should not be trusted to define its rebirth. Until that changes, every “new vision” will simply recycle the same failures in softer language.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immediate-action-to-improve-hmp-swaleside
ReplyDelete"The jail received an Urgent Notification in December, with inspectors raising concerns about high levels of violence and self-harm, the prevalence of drugs, and poor living conditions.
The Prison Service has today (14 January) published a new action plan in direct response to the notification with the aim of rapidly improving safety and standards. This includes installing new windows and netting to combat drones delivering contraband, hiring specialist search teams and dog handlers to crack down on drugs and weapons, and improved safety training for staff.
There will also be a greater focus on cleanliness"
A cobbler said it wasn't his fault as he's only been in post since July 1924:
"The Chief Inspector’s findings at HMP Swaleside were deeply concerning and clearly not acceptable. This reflects the scale of the crisis we inherited across our prison system."
________________________________________________________
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6967bdc53d6914d0c58d0dee/Transparency_Release.pdf
"In the 2020-2024 combined results, from 36 months onwards, the retention rate was 48.1% for the Band 3 Prison Officer comparator group, versus 31.6% for the
Unlocked Graduates group (without exclusions). At 42 months, this was 28.8% for UG participants and 44.3% for the comparison group."
The prison retention figures sit alongside the Swaleside urgent notification for a reason. They show the same pattern playing out across the criminal justice system: crisis, inspection, apology, action plan, repeat. Different site, same failure.
ReplyDeleteSwaleside was drowning in violence, drugs and self harm, yet the response is nets on roofs, search dogs and a cleanliness drive. That is not reform, it is damage control. It treats collapse as a facilities problem, not a leadership one.
The retention data only reinforces the picture. Core frontline roles across the system are haemorrhaging staff. Whether in prisons or probation, the message is the same: the work is becoming unmanageable and the organisations cannot hold on to their people.
This is not a series of isolated problems. It is a systemic leadership failure across MoJ agencies. Inspectors warn, ministers express concern, action plans are written, and nothing fundamentally changes.
When every crisis is framed as something “inherited”, accountability disappears. Institutions that never own their decline will never reverse it.