We are trying to fix the unfixable here. Probation is an impossible job and people who have been here years are looking through rose tinted glasses. It's always been a tainted career, most people don't even know we exist. And the biggest question, why are more people committing crime, why are more people up in court? Nobody wants to dig deep into corrupt governments, cost of living, decline in mental health provisions. Rather we wallow in a world of blame game, poor training, poor managers, never any questions on the individuals who cause this initial harm. Very naive and limited thinking.
*****
No, I think the naive and limited thinking is with you and those like you. The organisation itself uses the blame game, we see that with SFO and performance approaches. It is no secret that there is poor training, even the universities providing PQIP training cannot criticise the Ministry. The problem of inexperienced and poor managers is widely documented by HMIP. Probation historically was a noble career, not a tainted career. And the focus was actually not on stopping people committing crime, but stopping THE SAME people committing crime. Speak to anyone in probation that understands this differentiation and they’ll tell you the impact of cost of living, decline in mental health provisions, problems with access to social provision, and whatever else.
So there are no rose tinted glasses, and that term is used by managers to dismiss the opinions of those with experience and length of service. It’s an excuse to ignore the past and the embrace the current state of affairs without question.
No, I think the naive and limited thinking is with you and those like you. The organisation itself uses the blame game, we see that with SFO and performance approaches. It is no secret that there is poor training, even the universities providing PQIP training cannot criticise the Ministry. The problem of inexperienced and poor managers is widely documented by HMIP. Probation historically was a noble career, not a tainted career. And the focus was actually not on stopping people committing crime, but stopping THE SAME people committing crime. Speak to anyone in probation that understands this differentiation and they’ll tell you the impact of cost of living, decline in mental health provisions, problems with access to social provision, and whatever else.
So there are no rose tinted glasses, and that term is used by managers to dismiss the opinions of those with experience and length of service. It’s an excuse to ignore the past and the embrace the current state of affairs without question.
*****
“Most of the staff like the above now.”
“Most of the staff like the above now.”
Perhaps some do. But I think there’s a more uncomfortable question: how would you know you’ve lost professional autonomy if you’ve never experienced it? f your entire probation career has taken place within OASys, performance measures, prescribed processes, centrally designed practice models, mandatory e-learning and increasingly structured supervision, that isn’t managerialism intruding into probation practice. To you, that is probation practice. And I don’t mean that as criticism of newer staff. Quite the opposite. People cannot miss a professional culture they were never given the opportunity to inherit. That’s why the loss of experienced practitioners matters beyond simple staffing numbers. When they leave, we don’t merely lose somebody capable of carrying a caseload. We lose memory of how the job can be done differently.
Perhaps the greatest success of managerialism isn’t persuading practitioners to accept less autonomy. It’s eventually producing generations of practitioners who don’t recognise autonomy as something they’re supposed to possess. That also makes all the current talk about “professionalisation” rather interesting.
You can create registers, standards, CPD requirements and eventually statutory regulation. But a profession isn’t simply a workforce whose members are individually regulated. A profession also possesses a body of knowledge, an ethical identity and some meaningful authority over its own practice. Otherwise we’re in danger of creating something rather peculiar:
Perhaps the greatest success of managerialism isn’t persuading practitioners to accept less autonomy. It’s eventually producing generations of practitioners who don’t recognise autonomy as something they’re supposed to possess. That also makes all the current talk about “professionalisation” rather interesting.
You can create registers, standards, CPD requirements and eventually statutory regulation. But a profession isn’t simply a workforce whose members are individually regulated. A profession also possesses a body of knowledge, an ethical identity and some meaningful authority over its own practice. Otherwise we’re in danger of creating something rather peculiar:
professionally accountable individuals working in a profession that no longer controls its profession.And perhaps that’s why the argument about probation’s purpose matters more than nostalgia for “advise, assist and befriend”. If we can’t collectively articulate what good probation is, beyond completing the required processes, managing the allocated contacts, satisfying the assessment framework and demonstrating compliance, then somebody at the centre will continue defining it for us. They have plenty of modules available to explain it afterwards.
*****
Probation celebrated its centenary in 2007 and at that time from memory every service was a gold standard…….then Chris Grayling, the split, the CRC's managing medium risk cases that were high risk but which they were not allowed to increase to high, every CPO offered three years protected salary to push the split, the reunification, the abandonment of critical thinking, the Mickey Mouse training (sorry Disney), the new breed of duplicitous CPOs kowtowing to ministers…….from gold standard to the brink of collapse in a generation………makes you think what will come next……
The probation service’s crisis stems from chronic policy churn, de-professionalisation, and leadership failures, leaving the profession vulnerable both to political whim and internal inertia. Grounding this critique in official watchdog findings, structural reforms, and workforce data transforms it into a compelling, evidence-backed argument:
ReplyDelete* Disastrous Political Reorganization: The ideological push behind the 2014 Transforming Rehabilitation agenda split the service into the National Probation Service and 21 private Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). By 2019, HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) condemned the model as "irretrievably flawed," citing dangerous systemic risks and commercial failures that forced the government to renationalize delivery in 2021 at an estimated public cost of nearly £500 million.
* Dilution of Training & Identity: The transition from university-accredited social work qualifications (such as the DipPS) to accelerated vocational frameworks—notably the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP)—shortened foundational pedagogy to plug staffing gaps. While reducing upfront training costs, this shift dismantled probation’s identity as an autonomous, values-driven profession, absorbing practitioners into a standardised HMPPS civil service bureaucracy dominated by prison-centric metrics.
* Workforce Exhaustion and Brain Drain: HMIP annual reports repeatedly highlight unmanageable workloads, with some officers holding caseloads exceeding 130–150% of capacity. Experienced practitioners are exiting at record rates, leaving probation dominated by inexperienced staff without the institutional memory required to challenge Whitehall directives or advocate for genuine rehabilitation.
* Internal Fragmentation and Nostalgia: The workforce remains divided between legacy practitioners clinging to a mythologized pre-1990s "advise, assist, and befriend" era - which itself lacked robust empirical evidence of reconviction reduction - and newer cohorts accustomed to tick-box risk management. This division has weakened professional bodies like Napo and allowed executive roles to be filled by generalist Whitehall managers rather than reform-minded probation leaders.
Ultimately, lamenting an imagined golden age changes nothing. Reclaiming professional credibility requires probation professionals to organize around clinical autonomy, evidence-based risk assessment, and active leadership rather than passive compliance with bureaucratic mandates.
Police leaders call for Royal Commission into criminal justice system
ReplyDeletePolice leaders are calling for a Royal Commission into England and Wales’ criminal justice system, warning that years of fragmented and underfunded services are undermining policing and public confidence.
Nick Smart, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, will make the call today during the association’s annual conference, which is being attended by Policing Minister Sarah Jones.
He will urge the government to revive a commitment made in 2019 to establish a Royal Commission – something which has not happened and which would be the first such examination of the criminal justice system in more than 60 years.
Mr Smart is expected to say that the problems facing policing cannot be solved by reforming the police in isolation. “We do not police in isolation – and silo reform will not fix the systemic issues faced by all agencies within the criminal justice system,” he will say.
“UK policing is delivered by brilliant people who are committed to serving the public, but so often they are let down by the complex and underfunded criminal justice system around them.”
He will also attack the impact of the prison capacity crisis and the early release of prisoners, describing the scheme as “the most upsetting and lowest form of insult to every victim affected”.
Mr Smart will warn that such issues risk damaging public confidence in the justice system and will call for reform to cover all criminal justice partners.
Probation officers running to police these days telling tales hiw times have changed. For the worse
ReplyDeleteThere is something rather telling about police leaders apparently calling for a Royal Commission because reforming one part of criminal justice in isolation doesn’t work. Quite! Perhaps somebody could send that message down Whitehall.
ReplyDeleteFor years we have behaved as though prisons, probation, police, courts, housing, mental health, substance misuse services and social care are separate machines which can each be “transformed”, made more “efficient” and given their own performance measures without considering what happens to the others.
Prisons run out of space? Release people earlier.
Earlier release increases community supervision? Probation absorbs it.
Probation hasn’t enough capacity? Reduce the amount of activity through OFPS.
Need additional reassurance in the community? Add electronic monitoring, restrictions and more conditions.
More people breach conditions or are recalled? Prisons absorb them again.
And round we go.
Meanwhile each individual reform can be presented as perfectly rational because somebody has drawn the boundary around that bit of the system for which they’re responsible.
HMIP's description of probation is hardly nostalgic: too few staff, too little experience, too many cases, with systemic pressures contributing to reactive and compliance-focused practice.
So perhaps the question isn’t whether probation was once a “noble career”, it's whether we still understand that probation performs a function which cannot be separated from the health of the rest of the criminal justice and social system.
You can't compensate indefinitely for inadequate prisons, inaccessible mental health provision, unstable housing, court backlogs and insufficient community services by making the probation officer more “efficient”.
Eventually there is nothing left to optimise except the amount of time spent with the human being. And judging by what I’m currently learning about supervision packages, home visits, remote check-ins and “released capacity”, we appear to have reached that stage.
Perhaps a Royal Commission should start with one remarkably unfashionable question - what do we actually want probation to achieve, and what resources does achieving it require?
Then you design the system around the answer, rather than deciding what resources are available and continually redesigning probation until it fits.
I left the service end of June 2026 and have only seen and heard from former colleagues how worse it has got. There appears to be a lack of autonomy and sadly the service is more target driven as we know, than hearing about PO's professional judgement and knowledge of the case. I fear this and the ridiculous workload will push staff into further crisis (are we not at rock bottom yet?!)
ReplyDeleteMoJ trying to recruit temp POs back into the service with 3, 6 or 9 month contracts. Yet they are being capped at £42000 salaries! If I was tempted to go back this is LESS than what i was earning as a PO who was at the top of Band 4. Why would anyone go back to a failing service?
I believe there needs to be a whole systematic review into the service. Having worked with Police colleagues whilst there is some level of multi-agency working, sadly not all the time PO's are given information/ intelligence until it is too late. The whole system is broken!
Recruitment need to give their heads a wobble and address the pay issue as it is an ongoing joke but why does vetting take more than 6 months? Where are NAPO and GMB?
SLT need to grow a backbone and inform those in their ivory towers how Probation really operates and spend at least a week on the front line!
Police and probation are two separate entities and need to remain so……I have seen senior management over rule what I had to say in a Mappa 3 despite me knowing the individual for several years….for the Police’s input based on limited knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe rule seems to be POLICE = Good……….PROBATION= Do what the police want….