Forget all that stuff about £700million and 1,300 new Probation Officers - the answer as we now know is AI and Justice Transcribe is boosting productivity amazingly!
Justice Transcribe has saved an estimated 266,667 working hours across more than 1.6 million probation meetings since its rollout, according to the National Audit Office. The Ministry of Justice projects the tool will save around 450,000 hours annually for frontline officers.
Ok, there are one or two problems:-
i.e. shitloads of extra work as highlighted by the NAO report: "the pilot... recommended regular quality assurance audits and training on how to undertake a meaningful human review. Training and guidance materials emphasise the importance of reviewing the AI notes and the app included reminders for staff to do this at the point of use. For individual meetings, probation officers are expected to review the outputs from the tool before they add them to the national case management system."
There'll now be new well-paid managerial-level posts created for the chosen chumocrats who will deliver JT training & guidance for the frontline monkeys... and, of course, send a shitload of new emails reminding those monkeys to "review the outputs from the tool before they add them to the national case management system."
It aint gonna end well...
*****
Justice transcribe still requires you to review and edit what it has recorded…. That still takes time…. which it often records names / places wrong. It also doesn’t capture body language or HOW things are said/ the tone. That can be so revealing.
“no intervention completed due to crisis management and stabilisation”… you could play AI buzzword/ buzz phrase bingo!!!
Ok, lets play AI buzzword/ buzz phrase bingo!!!
Over to you.....Anon 08:08 - I’ll have ‘meaningful engagement’, ‘explored protective factors’, ‘emotional regulation’, ‘strengths-based approach’, ‘identified areas for further exploration’ and, of course, ‘crisis management and stabilisation’ for a full house, please!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/oct/20/ai-supposed-to-save-time-opposite-government-uk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Ot
ReplyDeleteDon’t be fooled. The AI that was supposed to save us time is doing just the opposite
DeleteThe government says it can transform the state with AI, but it is no match for the resulting stream of machine-generated slop. And we all pay the cost
Another morning, another avalanche of emails. Even after a guilty cull, my inbox is sitting at well over 7,000, but lately I’ve started subscribing to the Quentin Crisp theory of housework: why bother, when after four years or so you stop noticing the accumulating dust? Empty inboxes just fill up again anyway.
In theory, email was supposed to save hours of meetings, phone calls and standing over photocopiers. Instead, we just spend hours deleting stuff people wouldn’t have bothered telling us if it had meant picking up the phone, but which they can now spam to their entire database at the click of a button. The glorious ease and convenience of being able to reach the world in seconds came, we now know, with the inconvenience of them being able to reach you right back.
And therein lies the challenge to the government’s hopes of AI helping to transform the machinery of the state on the cheap, saving not only time but billions of pounds in public money. It’s early days, but AI seems not so much to be streamlining public service delivery as gumming it up – partly because, as was once the case with email, the public is using it right back at them.
In a Substack post last week, the former civil servant Sam Freedman noted that governments around the world seem to be experiencing unusual surges in complaints, requests and responses to regulatory and official bodies since the adoption of ChatGPT. It’s the same story in the courts, with employment tribunal cases in England, Scotland and Wales reportedly rising by 39% in a year thanks in part to claimants using AI to draft claims, while magistrates and judges face a wave of people who can’t afford lawyers using ChatGPT to build cases that often don’t make sense. And all of this needs patient disentangling by a human, on the grounds that just because a defendant is citing precedents that don’t exist, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a genuine grievance buried in there somewhere.
Whitehall special advisers complain of departments drowning in AI-generated freedom of information requests, an abuse of a system originally intended to empower individuals. MPs’ offices are similarly swamped by AI-generated letters, all of which need to be read by humans for fear of missing something important from a constituent.
How long before public consultations on changing the law become so spammed by slop that they are in essence useless as a measure of what the country actually thinks? There’s a fine line between the noble aim of making it easier for individuals to interact with an otherwise remote state, and making it so easy that the result is an uncontrollable firehose of meaningless machine-generated guff.
The obvious answer to this kind of AI flooding is getting AI tools to detect or sift it, but that doesn’t always work when dealing with potentially vulnerable human beings. Constituents who use AI to express themselves in more fancy-sounding language when writing to their MP, for example, still have the right to expect a personal response from a human being.
Employers who thought they were being smart by getting AI to sift job applications, meanwhile, are reaping what they sowed, as resentful applicants automate their end of things too and spray-gun applications across the board, rather than concentrating on the jobs they really want. Now neither side can separate the wheat from an avalanche of chaff.
The risk of paralysis is likely only to increase if the public starts adopting agentic AI in the kind of numbers big tech fondly imagines. Early adopters might well find agents save them time and hassle. But shortcuts stop being shortcuts once everyone else is using them too, and risk turning into bottlenecks instead. Think of cars, which have vastly shortened journey times compared with travelling by horseback, except in cities at rush hour when too many other people are also trying to shorten theirs. By 2018, central London daytime traffic was moving on average at just over 7mph – about the same speed as a trotting pony.
DeleteHistorically, humans have always learned to develop ways around problems of our own making. We have spam filters for email, congestion charges to keep cars out of cities, and in the long term we could well figure out what kind of frictions we need to put back in the system to make it possible to live with the impact of AI.
I’ll have ‘meaningful engagement’, ‘explored protective factors’, ‘emotional regulation’, ‘strengths-based approach’, ‘identified areas for further exploration’ and, of course, ‘crisis management and stabilisation’ for a full house, please!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the biggest buzz phrase of all is ‘efficiency savings’.
The Guardian article raises a rather uncomfortable question about AI. Just because something can be produced more quickly doesn’t necessarily mean it creates less work. Sometimes it simply redistributes that work, often to the very people who are already struggling with excessive demands. And that brings us neatly to Justice Transcribe.
We’re presented with huge figures about hours saved, but what's exactly being measured? Does that include the time spent reviewing lengthy narratives, correcting inaccuracies and removing generic language? Or are we simply assuming that meaningful human review takes place because the process says it should?
My concern is that the polished, professional sounding language can create a false sense of confidence in what’s been recorded. When every interaction reads like a carefully structured therapeutic intervention, how critically are we actually examining whether it reflects what happened?
There’s a considerable difference between reviewing a record for accuracy and being impressed by how well it reads.
Because a PP cannot simply assume that a beautifully constructed account is an accurate one. We remain professionally accountable for what goes onto the case record and what others may subsequently rely upon.
There is also something rather troubling about the apparent need to turn every conversation into an elaborate account of meaningful intervention.
Sometimes supervision involves difficult conversations, frustration, uncertainty or very little apparent progress. Sometimes it involves listening, observing and recognising something that isn’t captured by the words spoken. Professional judgement includes knowing the significance of those things without dressing them up in therapeutic terminology.
An impressive narrative isn’t necessarily evidence of impressive practice.
But here’s the bigger question. If Justice Transcribe really does save hundreds of thousands of hours, what happens to those hours?
Do PPs actually regain time to build relationships, undertake meaningful supervision, develop professional judgement and respond to changing circumstances? Or do those theoretical savings simply become another justification for increasing workloads, reducing expectations of staffing capacity and demanding even more from an already overstretched workforce?
Given the current debate about probation being ‘not fit for purpose’, staffing shortages, pay and retention, I think that’s a rather important distinction.
Technology that genuinely gives PPs more time to do their jobs should be welcomed. Technology that merely enables the organisation to claim greater productivity while leaving the underlying pressures untouched is something else entirely.
Perhaps the real bingo winner isn’t ‘crisis management and stabilisation’ after all.
It’s ‘efficiency realised, capacity released, benefits delivered’.
But delivered to who?
House!
You missed the final paragraph if the Guardian piece:
ReplyDeleteBut for now a useful rule of thumb, if improbable claims start to be made for savings due to AI, will be that more isn’t always better; faster and easier isn’t always more convenient; and time saved in one section of public services has a horrible habit of popping up in another one. Let the Whac-A-Mole begin.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/16-billion-productivity-boost-delivers-better-value-and-better-services-for-taxpayers
Delete'Getafix
Oh my word - so I did!
DeleteAnyway:-
£16 billion in efficiency and savings were delivered last year as government departments significantly outperformed their efficiency target. This is equivalent to 4.1% of day-to-day spending.
The NHS was a key driver through service redesign and digital transformation. This includes new AI chest X-ray analysis supporting faster diagnoses for more than four million patients.
Efficiencies have also been delivered by other major departments. For example, DfE’s AI lesson-planning tool is saving teachers an average of around three hours a week, and the ‘Ask HMRC’ digital assistant is helping to handle a record 6.3 million interactions in 2024/25, freeing up around 400 staff for more complex work.
Today’s announcement is proof that departments can deliver better bang for taxpayers’ buck while improving public services. It comes after the Prime Minister and Chancellor wrote to Cabinet to be clear that they will need to reprioritise spending within their budgets to deliver the greatest impact for families and businesses.
The NHS have nothing on Probation when it comes to efficiency! If, as the NAO found in 2024, the Probation service had only about half the sentence-management staff it needed, this would imply we are working at 200% per person!! And this was before Ai 😉
Delete23431 - Project Manager - The Project Delivery Function aim is to have capable and empowered teams, delivering Project Delivery excellence... The MoJ’s Functional Operating Model is unique across government. All project delivery professionals are line managed through the Function and then assigned to projects and programmes across the MoJ and its Agencies. Successful candidates will be part of a flexible resource pool and may be placed in roles based on business needs. The Project Manager leads and manages the project and project team. They are responsible for driving and overseeing the delivery of the project to ensure objectives are clearly defined and achieved within agreed time, cost, and quality constraints.
ReplyDeleteThe national salary range is £42,914- £46,182, London salary range is £49,325- £53,081.
But what's the fucking job?
23392 - Change Delivery Officer - Midlands Team - The Change Officer role is an integral role within both Area and National Change Delivery teams which work across Prison and Probation. This role is pivotal in overseeing, and in the delivery of, both local and nationally identified change initiatives. With approximately 175 staff across 3 functions, our Change Group represents half of the Change Directorate.
£37,238 - £44,520
But what's the fucking job??
23239 - Change Systems Project Officer - The Project Officer role specialises in change systems and is instrumental in facilitating the smooth implementation of HMPPS Gateway Management System and HMPPS EQuiP Process Management system and processes within HMPPS. Facilitate comprehensive process mapping workshops to visualise current workflows and identify opportunities for process optimization.
£28,064 - £33,549
Uhh?
22878 - Senior Project Manager - The Project Delivery Function aim is to have capable and empowered teams, delivering Project Delivery excellence. Our people will be empowered to develop the skills they need to succeed, and our line managers will be accountable for upholding functional standards and demonstrating excellence in project delivery. Successful candidates will be part of a flexible resource pool and may be placed in roles based on business needs. The Senior Project Manager leads and manages the project and project team.
The national salary range is £71,381 - £80,419, London salary range is £75,674 - £85,257
But what's the fucking job???
23405 - Senior Programme Manager - This is an important leadership role within the Service Centre expansion project, providing an exciting opportunity to shape and deliver a significant programme of change across probation services. Working under the governance of the Our Future Probation Service Programme, the postholder will oversee the full range of governance arrangements for the project, including reporting on progress, managing risks and issues, and ensuring clear and effective decision-making. We'll assess you against these behaviours during the selection process:
Communicating & Influencing (skilful bullying)
Delivering at Pace (intense bullying)
Leadership (incompetent bullying)
Seeing the Big Picture (erm, which one?)
The national salary range is £81,338 - £89,472, London salary range is £84,458 - £94,690.
Has anyone any fucking idea what the fuck they're drivelling on about?
ahh... "Some of MoJ’s terms and conditions of service are changing as part of Civil Service reform."
https://www.napo.org.uk/news/setting-record-straight-probation-pay-offer-and-cbf
DeleteNapo members will have seen the HMPPS issued communications to all employees yesterday, including what they claimed to be “a clarification” on Napo’s earlier mailout of the 9th of October 2026.
DeleteWe’ve taken legal advice on HMPPS’s statement and this is the key position we’ve been provided with…
“HMPPS has used official management channels during a live union ballot to present a disputed negotiating position as fact, without allowing the recognised union a reasonable opportunity to respond, and that this risks prejudicing the ballot and undermining the established industrial-relations relationship.”
During negotiations representatives of the employer said, or agreed, on more than one occasion that their pay offer was “unconditional”. This was once again stated hours before their ‘best and final offer’ letter, dated the 30th of September 2026, which included the following paragraph:-
“We now need a firm commitment that successor arrangements (to be negotiated) for CBF will begin to be implemented from 1 April 2027 onwards. Whilst details will need to be worked through with you, new arrangements will need to reduce or remove the impact of CBF on pay progression from 1 April 2027.”
Napo’s position is that by including this paragraph in their ‘best and final offer’ letter HMPPS require Napo to agree to conditions that will cause us to sacrifice a significant term and condition of service – CBF in its current form – as part of this pay offer. Here’s why we take this view…
In stating “We now need…” this doesn’t just reaffirm what Napo agreed to in the Joint Statement of March 2026 (referenced in yesterday’s HMPPS communication), but HMPPS want more from us as they now want “a firm commitment that successor arrangements (to be negotiated) for CBF will begin to be implemented from 1 April 2027” .
This creates a deadline by which time negotiations must be concluded on a replacement for the current form of CBF and when it starts to operate.
What happens to those of us completing CBF this year?
What if the employer and trade unions can’t agree an outcome following negotiations?
What if the members of one or more trade unions reject the ‘successor arrangements’ for CBF in its current form?
What impact will that have on future pay negotiations?
What’s been agreed already in discussions between HMPPS and The Treasury about this and what aren’t we being told?
By saying “new arrangements will need to reduce or remove the impact of CBF on pay progression…” this means an existing term and condition – CBF – will no longer exist in its current form from the start of the 2027/28 financial year.
In yesterday’s statement HMPPS claimed that ongoing talks on ‘pay reform’ are “separate to this pay offer”. If that was the case, why did they include the paragraph above in their ‘best and final offer’ letter on pay for 2026/27?
Finally, Napo continue to challenge as grossly misleading the employer’s attempts – repeated in yesterday’s statement – to include pay progression (following successful completion of the Competency Based Framework the year before) with the pay offer as misleading. Napo are honest with our members – the pay offer from the employer was 5% on all pay bands/points and allowances. As many of us heard in an all-staff call last Wednesday, HMPPS made a “choice” to withhold pay progression from staff who were eligible in April this year.
This makes me laugh - hysterical laughter. They are doing this arse about face. OFPS launched February 2025. The OFPS program should have been informed by a Business Process Reengineering (BPR) project firstly. Ha ha they are now looking at doing the BPR and advertising roles 18 months later.
DeleteYou couldn’t make this up. Most important role advertised is actually the 23239 - Change Systems Project Officer who will be mapping the ‘as is’ processes and then design the ‘to be’ processes. I can guarantee you all that they will not consult with the frontline officers re the current and future processes. I have repeatedly said that frontline officers know the problems and the solutions but no, the officers are not considered clever enough are they! The officers MUST be part of the mapping processes.
Senior management who have come up with the whole OFPS are Fuckwits (excuse that but I don’t think this deserves me to find a more polite way of saying it). I will bet my last £100 quid this is not going to end well as JB regularly references.
Why is it that the pay offer suggests a 5% increase for everyone and then an additional 4.8% for anyone that isn’t at the top of their band and can progress with CBF.
ReplyDeleteIt’s totally flawed.
The service needs experience to mentor and develop staff. It takes years to develop a holistic understanding of building relationships, challenging behaviour, safeguarding, delivering intervention work and all the processes that are ever changing… everyday is a learning day.
Senior leaders bang on about retention and how valued staff are for all that they do… so why aren’t those that have spent years in the service and are at the top of their band eligible for the same uplifts and are stuck at the 5% with CBF progression. It’s insulting and disgusting.
It just shows HMPPS isn’t interested in experience …. they just want bums on seats.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr74p0zkd4jjo
ReplyDelete"Criminals who skip sentencing will face solitary confinement or lose social visits"