So, it’s 2:30 am, little Johnny has had one over the eight, triggering his alcohol tag……he is at his ‘mates’ house who told him to ignore his curfew at 11 pm, but being the good little soldier he is, he decides to walk home and in the dark mistakes Sevestapol Terrace for Florizel Street and breaches his proximity tag……he gets home safely and decides to get his head down…..that’s three breaches to address at 9am by his PO …..
In a bad night if you have two or three in a similar position it will be afternoon before you have done all the paperwork……but don’t worry the SPO says let the AI do it……but as his PO is covering two officers on maternity and stress leave, it’s closer to mid afternoon before it gets done….in the meantime little Billy has been picked up by the Feds for dropping his trousers in Tesco, it was in Lidl that triggered the original offence last time….and little Amelia has failed to turn up for her appointment....
Two Parole reports to be completed by Friday……a Mappa referral for little Billy at the insistence of the SPO and all day is spent trying to complete a housing referral for houses that don’t exist.The next day on the all staff call, the PO is told how much they are valued but the questions and comments are turned off as the management don’t want to hear what the valued staff members think…..it now turns out that Little Billy held a worker against their will for 15 seconds and has also been charged with False Imprisonment triggering an SFO…………..but don’t worry, our staff are the heartbeat of the organisation…………..
A fairy tale or an apocryphal future, coming soon to an office near you…….with apologies to the London and Manchester offices as it has already arrived there………
Anon
--oo00oo--
So the annual recruitment fiasco is now complete. Three different closing dates tells the tale, they cannot recruit enough staff, nobody wants the job and the attrition rate amongst the newbies is high. The reasons are simple, the recruitment process is flawed, partially because of the online process and like the promotion interviews give people the opportunity to inflate their knowledge and experience and then are found wanting in the role.
--oo00oo--
So the annual recruitment fiasco is now complete. Three different closing dates tells the tale, they cannot recruit enough staff, nobody wants the job and the attrition rate amongst the newbies is high. The reasons are simple, the recruitment process is flawed, partially because of the online process and like the promotion interviews give people the opportunity to inflate their knowledge and experience and then are found wanting in the role.
Those of us with 25 years plus service are seen as dinosaurs by the management, the young thrusters are all 'yes' people and cannot deal with push back and this will not work. Recalls are through the roof because POs are not as versatile or able to deal with challenges and I am aware of certain SPOs operating a recall process to reduce caseloads especially those with 18 months and less to serve.
There is a culture of giving many license conditions to those that don’t really need them but it is a 'just in case' scenario, not a fully fledged risk assessment and management process. There are far too many SPOs that should be back on the floor learning the profession and get all these QDOs back on field duties and have their crayons and bar charts removed and PTAs should have at least ten years post qualifying experience.
Hark, I hear, 'why don’t you take up a SPO role?', because I am not a mouthpiece for management, I can do a lot more good managing complex and risky cases and pushing back and annoying the management and not ticking boxes, keeping a list of things that I have not done this week because I did not have the time.
Work your hours and push back, we are in a position of strength and the worst they can do is threaten you with competency, but if you get your team to do it with you, you have the power and the upper hand. Be strong, be brave but most of all be honest to yourself and live a life. Switch the phone and laptop off on Friday and leave it until 0900 Monday morning and switch off every day when you want to, but only do the hours and then the SPOs will have to pick up the incomplete work not you and not your colleagues.
Anon
Editor's note
Who writes this crap?
From Twitter :-
ReplyDelete"My wife offered to return as a PO. She was told she would have to go in at the bottom of the scale, despite years of previous experience. She told them 'no thanks'."
"Editor's note - Who writes this crap?"
ReplyDelete?your loyal readers & contributors?
?hmpps disruptors?
?angry disillusioned anonymous staff off-loading?
08:46 I meant the Press Release!
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-crackdown-to-restrict-offenders-freedom-and-give-it-back-to-victims
Doh! Apologies Jim... missed the link.
DeleteThere was a link in the comment to the crap referred to if you really want to waste minutes of your life reading tosh churned out by Copilot by the looks of it. Perish the thought any self respecting right minded regular contributor to this blog would write crap. Ramble on a bit, occasionally lose the plot but never crap.
ReplyDeleteI saw this from Nacro and, frankly, I can’t say I agree with the way this is being framed.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are undoubtedly some unnecessary or disproportionate recalls. But are there not also unnecessary convictions, unnecessary custodial sentences and unnecessary use of remand? If we are going to have a serious conversation about proportionality in the justice system, why does the spotlight so quickly fall on probation and recalls?
Nacro says:
“Our report ‘A Proportionate recall system’ (August 2026), finds that the number of people recalled to custody has increased exponentially over recent years. Since 2016/17, recalls have risen by 136%, despite the number of people released falling by over a fifth. Our analysis also shows that four in five recalls in 2025/26 did not relate to people who were facing a charge for further offending, but for reasons such as a failure to reside at a specified address or to attend probation meetings. There are currently 9,900 in prison who were recalled for reasons other than facing further charges. While a number of this group may pose a risk to the community, action to create a more proportionate system would free up capacity in the prison estate, and is as important as the ‘earned progression’ system that is expected to free up 5,000 beds over the next nine months”
But this is where the headline figures need much more scrutiny.
A recall because someone has not attended an appointment isn’t automatically the same thing as a recall because someone has committed a further offence. But neither does the absence of a further charge mean the recall was unnecessary.
What about escalating behaviour? Increasing risk? Repeated non-compliance? Failure to reside? Concerns reported by others? Deterioration in someone’s circumstances? And what about further offending where there hasn’t yet been a charge?
Probation officers are expected to manage risk and make difficult professional judgements. Yet how many SFOs have we seen where the subsequent criticism asks why the probation officer didn’t recall when there had been increasing risk, reported concerns or significant non-compliance?
The system puts probation in an impossible position. Recall someone and you can be accused of being disproportionate and contributing to an overcrowded prison estate. Don’t recall someone, and if things subsequently go badly wrong, the question becomes: why didn’t probation act?
So perhaps the debate needs to be a little more sophisticated than simply counting how many recalls didn’t involve a new charge.
And if Nacro genuinely wants to tackle disproportionality and prison overcrowding, why stop at recall?
Why aren’t we talking with the same urgency about why so many women, foreign nationals and children under 18 are occupying prison places, particularly where serious offences have not been committed?
Why aren’t we seriously addressing the excessive use of remand? If people are being remanded partly because they have nowhere suitable to live, perhaps that £700m being spent on tagging could be better connected to actual accommodation and support. Maybe Nacro could focus some of its considerable energy on helping create the accommodation infrastructure that would mean people aren’t remanded simply because they are homeless or cannot demonstrate a suitable address.
And what about IPP prisoners? There are still fundamental decisions to be made about people who remain imprisoned under a sentence that was abolished years ago. The majority who have served the punitive element of their sentence should surely be subject to serious consideration for automatic release rather than continuing to occupy prison places indefinitely.
There is a legitimate conversation to be had about whether the recall system is proportionate. Of course there is.
But let’s not pretend that every recall without a new criminal charge is somehow evidence of probation getting it wrong.
Sometimes a person is recalled because probation is responding to risk, behaviour and non-compliance before something even more serious happens.
Cont ..
DeletePerhaps instead of continually blaming probation for the prison population, Nacro should look at the justice system as a whole.
Because if we really want fewer people in prison, the answer isn’t simply “recall fewer people.”
It is to ask why they were convicted, why they were sentenced to custody, why they were remanded, why suitable accommodation isn’t available, why some people remain imprisoned long after their tariff has expired, and whether custody is actually the proportionate response in the first place.
Probation shouldn’t be used as the convenient scapegoat for failures that run right through the entire criminal justice system.
But the recall figures are staggering!
DeleteYes but these 2025/2026 figures were undoubtedly impacted by PSS, ECSL, FTR48, Reset and all those other early release schemes which provided very little by way of support for those being released.
DeleteIt’s too simplistic to say the “probation recalls caused prison overcrowding” and frankly I’m tired of being scapegoated.
Don't forget that NACRO directly profit from CAS2 being used as an alternative to recall.
DeleteSPOs promoted early who feel that placing people at high risk, or referring them to Mappa, or those that fail to attend on time, or that the only way to manage difficult individuals is to recall them contribute to this relatively recent phenomenon…….it is not down to them as individuals ( there are many good new in the role SPOs) but the fear factor that stalks the halls of probation……fear is an unspoken driver, should anything go seriously wrong, who is to blame………despite what the SFO investigation teams says, it is looking for individual blame……therefore a breach of anything minor provides a chance to cover up any earlier omissions…….
ReplyDeleteProbation toxic no help to anyone who doesn’t tip their cap and bow to their officer every session
ReplyDeleteHowever the recall rate is explained, it's not just staggering, it's disgusting and a shameful indictment on the CJS.
ReplyDeleteOver 50,000 recalls a year is well over 50% of the total prison population as it stands. How on earth are prisons ever going to get to a functional capacity whilst more then half of those being sent there are not sent by the courts, or even for committing a criminal offence, but are 'returns' for non compliance to conditions they were never asked to agree to?
What is the cost of 50,000 recalls a year? Financial and resource drainage is huge, not just to probation and prisons, but to all the other satellite agencies that are impacted on, mental health services, addiction services, and even the DWP and housing authorities are impacted by the recall rate.
There is more then one fifth, more then 20% of the total probation case load being sent to prison each year, and that figure is not really a true figure, because it dosent account for those on the probation books that have not been discharged from custody and can't be recalled.
The real issue is that the CJS diverts everyone and their dog into some form of probation supervision. There is no need to subject a quarter of a million people to supervision by probation.
Probation dosent work unless its by consent. Its current model only serves to drive many of the problems the CJS is experiencing today.
Infact, the problems the current model of probation causes the CJS, are equal to the dependency the government have on probation when trying to implement all their new policies and early release scheme.
I don't know how that circle can be squared.
'Getafix
We are all to blame here we have never been strong enough or active in any opposition to continued disaster.
Delete
DeleteDo you want an accurate statement or a dramatic one?
The figures showed were 13,000 licence recall events in the first quarter of 2026. If that quarterly rate continued for four quarters, it would equate to roughly 50,000 recall events in a year.
This should not be interpreted as 53,000 unique individuals were recalled.
We know that in the period immediately before this there was both PSS and mass early release schemes which then affected recall rates.
Stop scapegoating probation officers about recalls.
If offenders didn't consent to working with Probation then they would serve a full prison term as far as I believe, so much like today really. We either recall for technical licences breaches (if proportional) or we don't but that's up to the government. If someone doesn't reside as directed or attend appointments what do we do exactly, close the file?
DeleteI don't think getafix was applying any criticism of po it was the state of the justice system.
Delete"Stop scapegoating probation officers about recalls." Oh dear. I can see this is getting fractious. Can we keep to a reasoned dialogue please.
ReplyDeleteIt is the probation service in its current iteration & those in senior management &/or hmpps who authorise the recalls who must carry the can - and that has to include probation practitioners, however much they dislike it, because they are bound by the organisation to do so.
DeleteIts not a personal thing; its an systemic thing.
The *system* is fooked, and those within it are collateral damage. But the system doesn't care about that. The system is there to protect the system; hmpps are there to protect hmpps... and politicians are driving the protectionist approach because of public opinion, the media & ultimately power/votes/money.
Those being recalled - whether once or twenty times - are no concern of the MPs or hmpps, or even the probation management strata. It is therefore not difficult to see why/when those on the frontline don't give a crap either.
And the more 'new' staff they can recruit in the current climate, the more likely it is that they won't give a crap, because that's all they've known.
The Government's own statistics show that policy changes have substantially increased the population exposed to licence supervision and the opportunities for recall.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, Nacro's figures show a system in which more than 51,000 people were recalled during 2025/26, with further offending cited in only 21% of cases. Nacro estimates the annual cost of recalls at around £750m.
So the serious policy question isn't:
"Why are probation officers recalling so many people?"
It is:
"Why have we constructed a system in which tens of thousands of people can be returned to prison without committing a new offence, and what proportion of those recalls actually make the public safer?"
That is the question that should be answered with data rather than ideology.
And there is one particularly important test I would apply to any proposed reform:
Don't set probation a target to reduce recalls.
That would simply transfer the risk.
Instead, require the service to demonstrate that every recall was proportionate to the person's assessed risk and that reasonable alternatives had been considered.
That puts professional judgement back at the centre without telling practitioners to take risks with public safety.
It also exposes the real problem:
if the system cannot distinguish between a dangerous escalation and a technical failure of supervision, the problem isn't the number of recalls. The problem is the design of probation itself.
This is where I think the discussion needs to land.
ReplyDeleteI have no difficulty accepting that 50,000-plus recall events is an extraordinary figure and absolutely warrants examination. What I object to is the lazy leap from that figure to “probation is recalling too many people”.
Those are not the same proposition.
A recall without a new charge is not necessarily an unnecessary recall. Risk can escalate long before somebody is arrested or charged. Repeated failure to reside, disappearing from supervision, contact with victims, deteriorating behaviour, intelligence from other agencies or a pattern of non-compliance can all mean something very different depending on the individual case.
That is precisely what professional judgement is for.
But the answer must not be another target telling probation to reduce recalls because prisons are full. That would simply move institutional risk back onto the individual PP.
Imagine the position: prisons need capacity, recalls are politically inconvenient, practitioners are encouraged to use recall less, and then somebody commits an SFO. We all know exactly where the retrospective scrutiny would land.
So yes — scrutinise recall. Publish the reasons. Look at repeat recalls. Examine licence conditions. Ask whether homelessness, unavailable treatment or unrealistic requirements are driving non-compliance. Ask whether longer periods on licence and successive early-release schemes have simply increased the population exposed to recall. Ask whether fear of SFOs is contributing to defensive practice.
But do it properly.
The test should be whether each recall was necessary and proportionate to the risk known at the time, not whether probation met some centrally imposed numerical reduction.
And perhaps government should also ask the uncomfortable upstream question: why has it designed a sentencing and release system that creates ever more opportunities for people to cycle between prison and community supervision in the first place?
Because if the policy response to overcrowded prisons is earlier release, followed by increasingly complex licence conditions, increased electronic monitoring and greater opportunities for breach and recall, then the system risks manufacturing the very prison demand it is trying to reduce.
That isn’t a probation officer problem.
It’s a system-design problem.
It's a systemic issue, no doubt created by fear. The point here is that the proportion of recalls has massively increased relative to the size of the caseload.....recall was previously used only where absolutely necessary and no alternatives were deemed suitable....it's not that the proportion of SFOs or reoffending was any worse in the days where recall was used more judiciously....in fact I believe (though please do correct me if I'm wrong) that the proportion of SFOs relative to the caseload has increased as has the rate of reoffending. So potentially higher recall rates lead to a less safe system.
DeleteI agree we shouldn't necessarily look to individual officers, but what is it within the system that has led to a much much higher use of recall as a risk management tool.
What really concerns me is that OFPS has done absolutely nothing to sort this out other than reduce the time spent on recall, although increased the length of a standard recall at the same time.
Supervision packages will make this worse...I've definitely used "weekly reporting", additional appointments, 3 ways, extra home visits and professional meetings with the person on probation also being present as "alternative" methods to deal with the potential recall matters...if the allocated number of appointments have been "used up" it seems engagement approaches to dealing with problems rather than recall are no longer expected or possibly not even allowed, once again possibly making recall the only available and default option
I think there has been some really good, well considered and well expressed comments today.
DeleteThe recall rate is a serious problem, but it is created by the system itself.
Recall dosent solve a problem, it shelves it, tucks it away for awhile, perhaps even until the end of licence, and then what? It becomes an unsupervised problem.
The question that keeps popping up in my mind is,
"Why is everyone that leaves custody deemed a suitable case to be supervised by probation?"
Clearly many are not suitable, probably theres even more that don't require it.
If there's no benefit, then theres no point is there?
'Getafix
typed in "recall rates uk"... this was the summary presented by whichever AI bot is hiding inside the machine:
Delete"Prison recall rates in England and Wales have reached record highs, with over 51,400 people recalled to custody in the 12 months leading to March 2026.
Key Statistics
Record Highs: Annual recalls reached 51,419, surpassing new court sentencing admissions (around 47,000) for the first time.
The Recall Rate: In early 2026, the quarterly recall rate exceeded 100%—meaning more people were pulled back into prison than were released during that window.
Reasons for Recall: Only about 21% to 22% of recalls involve a charge for further criminal offending. The vast majority are driven by technical licence breaches, such as non-compliance (9,683 in Q1 2026) or failing to keep in touch with probation (5,025 in Q1 2026)."
[Sources were variously quoted as The Times; PrisonAdvice & Care Trust; BBC; Russell Webster]
In the Red Corner: "Only about 21% to 22% of recalls involve a charge for further criminal offending... The vast majority are driven by technical licence breaches"
In the Blue Corner: " What I object to is the lazy leap from that figure to 'probation is recalling too many people'. "
And I have an answer to the question posed: "what is it within the system that has led to a much much higher use of recall as a risk management tool?"
A simple four-letter word.
Fear.
* Fear generated by the system to ensure the system remains intact.
* Fear perpetuated by the layers of authority who need y'all to do as you're told.
And then y'all have your own issues:
* Fear of getting it wrong (but that can also be a healthy & valuable tool in the box)
* Fear of losing your job.
* Fear of being crucified by the obedient box-tickers who can't see past their own fears.
* Fear of recognising that your expertise, your knowledge of the job, your professional judgement is worthless in the eyes of the organisation.
And more widely:
* Fear generated in the media
* Fear magnified by worthy groups & representative organisations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8mgl94ej8o
Delete"A man who threatened to slit the throat of his ex-partner and set fire to her home has been given a suspended prison sentence... He made a number of chilling threats including that he would "ram a vehicle into her house, set fire to her address and use a knife to slit her throat"... District judge suspended a 12-month prison sentence for a year and ordered him to complete 150 hours of unpaid work and a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement."
Place this in the context of recent high profile events in the Middlesbro' area.... and of course people are frightened and angry that the courts are too lenient and want everyone locked up. "What use is 30 days' activity & some community service?" they'll ask.
Damned if you, Damned if you don't
ReplyDeleteYes, we’ve heard it all time and time again: “Probation recalls caused prison overcrowding.” It’s simply not that straightforward and the figures need to be scrutinised.
DeleteOvercrowding is also about crumbling prisons, the number of people held on remand, and early-release schemes that can result in people being released at very short notice without the support they need. Those schemes can then increase the likelihood of recalls. How many women, children and foreign nationals are in prison unnecessarily?
Nobody is denying that probation can sometimes be trigger-happy when it comes to recalls. But perhaps we should ask why.. Before we even get into that, if we really don’t want recalls, there are some fairly obvious options: make people serve their full sentence, abolish post-release licences, or make probation supervision voluntary. It really is that simple.
Here’s a hypothetical example or maybe it’s real!!
Three men walk into a bar one evening. A serious incident takes place and all three are arrested on suspicion.
The first is on probation after being released from prison. He has missed his last two probation appointments. He had earlier explained to his probation officer on the phone that he didn’t have the money to get to the office, and the bus tickets he had been given weren’t accepted on the bus.
The second is living in a probation hostel after being released from prison. He has missed his sign-ins since that morning. He had earlier phoned a hostel worker who emailed his probation officer to explain that he was in hospital with a minor injury.
The third was also recently released from prison. He had been arrested twice in the previous week but released without charge. He had told his probation officer that he had been wrongfully arrested.
The probation officer recalls all three men for breach of licence after they are charged with the serious incident.
An SFO investigation follows.
The conclusion? All three men should have been recalled before they ever stepped into the bar. The probation officer is blamed.
The investigation also finds that the probation officer should have carried out immediate home visits in all three cases and more thoroughly scrutinised the explanations by contacting the bus company, hospital and police.
The probation officer explains that they are carrying a double workload. It makes no difference. They are punished.
They are given actions requiring home visits to be completed on cases, their enforcement decisions are audited for the next 12 months by an SPO who has only just completed their NQO period, they are required to meet with a QDO who has also just completed their NQO period, and following a disciplinary meeting with a PDU Head who has never actually been a probation officer, a warning is placed on their file.
They challenge the warning themselves because their union representative is too busy to provide sufficient support.
Meanwhile, two of three men have the charges against them dropped. They remain in custody because they are still subject to recall. The third, the man that was staying at the probation hostel (and was in hospital), is found guilty and sentenced to time served.
People wonder why probation becomes increasingly risk-averse when it comes to recalls. When every decision is judged with hindsight, when the expectation becomes “you should have known”, and when the consequences of not recalling someone are potentially career-ending, is it really surprising that probation officers start recalling people who might otherwise have been managed safely in the community?
The problem isn’t simply that probation recalls too many people. The problem is the system that expects probation officers to do.
.. and the probation officer became unwell, went on sick leave and eventually left. They’re now flourishing in a new career that pays and treats them better.
DeleteThe fact that 02;24 was posted at that time suggests that they are either working in an AP or more likely are not sleeping due to the response that the events listed detailed……this is the lot of the over worked,over stressed modern probation officer, so while the government does its best to prevent a prison disturbance through its Early release scheme, no one……from the CPO down is speaking up for the intolerable pressures that staff are working under, perhaps it’s time to take it out of probations hands and call for a root and branch review of the job from the Health and Safety Executive……
ReplyDeleteYes!
DeleteSo much power vested in HSE determinations
DeletePrisoners could be freed after serving sixth of sentence
ReplyDeleteMinistry of Justice considers reviving ‘house arrest’ scheme with 12-hour curfews and electronic ankle tags
The hypothetical example at 02:24 explains something that statistics alone never will.
ReplyDeleteIf we genuinely want to understand why recall practice has changed, then somebody needs to examine what the organisation has taught practitioners about the consequences of getting risk wrong.
We are told to exercise professional judgement. But when an SFO occurs, that judgement can be reconstructed months later with information that wasn’t available at the time and every missed appointment, telephone call, piece of intelligence or change in behaviour suddenly acquires a significance that was far less obvious prospectively.
“Why didn’t you know?”
“Why didn’t you visit?”
“Why didn’t you verify it?”
“Why didn’t you escalate?”
“Why didn’t you recall?”
Do that often enough and an organisation shouldn’t be surprised when practitioners become defensive.
And this is why I am increasingly concerned about OFPS supervision packages.
At present, when something starts to wobble, I can increase reporting, arrange additional appointments, undertake a home visit, involve another professional, hold a three-way meeting and try to stabilise the situation. Those aren’t meaningless contacts. They are some of the alternatives to recall that everyone now says they want us to use.
So what happens when contact becomes increasingly rationed by a supervision model designed primarily to “release capacity”?
If I have supposedly “used up” the allocated contacts but my professional judgement tells me I need to see somebody again next week, what takes precedence — my judgement or the package?
Because HMPPS cannot have this both ways.
It cannot criticise practitioners for excessive recall while creating a culture in which failure to recall can destroy a career.
It cannot demand alternatives to recall while restricting the professional contact through which those alternatives are delivered.
It cannot tell us to exercise professional judgement and then retrospectively punish that judgement whenever an unpredictable human being subsequently does something terrible.
And it certainly cannot keep loading responsibility onto practitioners while simultaneously stripping away their autonomy, experience, time and discretion.
Perhaps the proposed HSE involvement isn’t such an outrageous suggestion after all. Because at some point somebody independent needs to examine not simply whether probation is hitting its targets, but whether the system of work itself is safe — for practitioners and consequently for the public.
You cannot manage public protection through fear.
Eventually fear stops producing better decisions. It produces defensive ones.
HSE is the way forward, HMPps will never launch an introspective investigation as they are afraid of what they will find
DeleteYes!
DeleteA Day in the Life of a Probation Officer — February 2027
ReplyDelete08:55 — Log on.
09:00 — Check emails.
09:02 — Regret checking emails.
Three overnight GPS alerts, two alcohol-tag alerts, one curfew breach and somebody appears to have entered a restriction zone. Possibly Tesco.
09:15 — Establish that one GPS breach occurred because the person on probation took the wrong road home.
Consider professional judgement.
Check policy.
Check updated policy.
Check policy clarification issued following updated policy.
Email SPO.
09:37 — Reminder arrives that OFPS has released 25% of practitioner capacity.
Look around desk for released capacity.
Unable to locate it.
09:45 — First appointment. Person released from prison yesterday considerably earlier than originally expected.
No accommodation.
No phone.
No benefits.
Has electronic tag.
Excellent. At least we know precisely where he is homeless.
10:20 — Alcohol-tag alert.
Phone person on probation.
No answer.
Phone again.
No answer.
Record attempts.
Update assessment.
Consider enforcement.
Consider recall.
Consider prison overcrowding.
Consider Nacro report criticising recalls.
Consider SFO review asking why you didn’t recall.
Make coffee.
Forget coffee.
11:00 — Supervision appointment.
Would like to see person again next week because things aren’t going particularly well.
Check supervision package.
Allocated contacts already used.
Apparently professional judgement has exceeded its monthly allowance.
11:45 — Teams call.
Senior leader thanks everybody for their extraordinary resilience during this exciting period of transformation.
Chat disabled.
Questions disabled.
Possibly safest risk-management decision made all week.
12:00 — Lunch.
Cancel lunch.
12:01 — Police intelligence received.
12:15 — MAPPA referral started.
13:05 — Urgent housing referral.
There are no houses.
Complete referral anyway.
13:40 — Notification that another prisoner will shortly be released under the latest measure designed to relieve pressure on prisons.
Wonder briefly where pressure goes when it leaves prison.
Return to work.
14:00 — Parole report.
14:06 — GPS alert.
14:12 — Curfew breach.
14:19 — Email reminding staff to prioritise wellbeing.
14:21 — Delete wellbeing email to create inbox capacity.
14:30 — SPO asks why OASys hasn’t been completed.
Explain morning.
SPO sympathises.
OASys still due today.
15:10 — Discuss potential recall.
Recall may be disproportionate.
Not recalling may be unsafe.
Additional supervision might help.
Additional supervision isn’t in package.
Stare thoughtfully at screen.
AI offers to summarise dilemma.
Decline.
16:00 — All-staff email celebrating successful recruitment of another 1,300 probation officers.
Glance at empty desks.
Feel reassured.
16:20 — Complete recording from 09:45 appointment.
Cannot remember what 09:45 felt like.
16:45 — Another alert.
17:00 — Contracted hours finished.
Laptop remains open.
17:32 — Remember coffee.
17:45 — Log off.
17:47 — Remember something from case at 11:00.
Log back on.
18:03 — Finally leave.
On way home, hear radio discussion asking why probation officers are recalling so many people.
Turn radio off.
Tomorrow: mandatory webinar — “Building Resilience Through Change”.
This is true from Dover to Carlisle and from Ipswhich to Blackpool
DeleteAnd don’t forget, down to the South, South West and South East as well 😊
DeleteI have always found the recall argument a strange one. I never recall someone on a whim, or for missing an appointment.
ReplyDeleteGranted there is little recalls for re-offending, but there is no accountability for Individuals who persistently breach license conditions or are persistent at non-compliance. Why do we not focus on the behaviour of individuals?
Also whitewashing sentencing doesn't help. 3 year sentence you serve one year and if you breach your license it's a 56 day recall, the system is a joke, but alongside that individuals need to take responsibility for their behaviour.
I've never understood why Probation are under so much scrutiny for following guidelines. Push people out of prison without the right support in place, recalls are inevitable. But I've yet to hear a single solution to this.
It’s about who is to blame….the prison service is too strong and the Police will never be challenged therefore scrutinising the probation service gives an outlet for the red tops……we are the whipping boys for the CJS, plain and simple…..
DeleteRobots obsessed with checking policy cant yiu make your own judgements ?
ReplyDeleteYou prove my point. Blame the PO for the behaviour of the individual. I'm guessing you aren't in sentence management. There are still some who apply professional judgement, but what do you suggest for multiple license breaches? More license conditions, a 4th warning letter? Make individuals accountable for their behaviour
DeleteNo they cant no independent though required for new traffic warden breed
ReplyDeleteIf the current system does not change we will lose good conscientious officers the fear factor is very real and is like a taboo within the service……HSE to investigate
ReplyDeleteApparently overheard at HQ OFPS…….is now referred to as Our Fucking Probation Service…….given the number of issues these changes have raised?
ReplyDelete