Saturday, 17 October 2026

Not Fit For Purpose

With a call for probation to be put into 'special measures', I'm reminded of this that ultimately resulted in the MoJ being created and probation moving from Home Office supervision:-

"Our system is not fit for purpose."

And with this description of parts of the Home Office in 2006, the then-Home Secretary John Reid minted a phrase that has lodged in the lexicon of British politics. He was speaking a few months after thousands of foreign-born prisoners had been released from British jails without first being considered for deportation.

Lord Reid has previously attributed the four-word phrase to an unnamed senior civil servant. Now in a three-part series about the Home Office, the Newscast podcast can reveal the identity of its author. It was the permanent secretary in the department at the time, Sir David Normington.

"It is my phrase, but it was written in a private memo to the Home Secretary, John Reid, just after he had arrived. [It was] me saying, 'This is what the Home Office is like,'" he told us.

Sir David accompanied Lord Reid as he uttered the now infamous form of words to a House of Commons committee two decades ago.

"With me sat beside him, [I tried] to rearrange my face as he described all 70,000 civil servants in the Home Office as not fit for purpose," he recalled. "That was a difficult moment and the civil service said to me: 'Well, why don't you stand up and tell him it's not true?'

"The trouble was… it was my phrase."

In the 20 years since it was popularised, "not fit for purpose" has become a universal by-word for state incompetence, something bureaucrats and their ministerial bosses reach for when they are trying to strike a tough, no-nonsense tone.

The Hansard record of parliamentary proceedings suggests it has been used nearly 3,000 times in the Commons and Lords since 2006. In the 20 years before that, the phrase was used just 37 times. It has been deployed in debates ranging from conditions in armed forces housing to the sewerage system of a Cornish hospital.

--oo00oo--

Now at this point, can I point readers in the direction of Dominic Cummings' evidence to the House of Lords Consitution Committee a couple of days ago. For those interested in probation's nightmare journey at the hands of government and civil service, I think you will find your time will be well spent as you reflect on his robust demolition of the shit show that purports to be our system of government and political control. Reflect also on the role the Cabinet Secretary plays and our past dealings with the current post holder.*

--oo00oo--

In the absense of being in the room and limited news emerging, I guess this in the Guardian from Polly Toynbee gives a flavour of feeling within Napo at the AGM in Newcastle:- 

Britain is addicted to prisons. Our crumbling probation service proves they don’t work

The current system is unable to quench the public thirst for locking people up – and certainly doesn’t ensure proper care once they are released

Public services need more investment across the board. Every day, another wretched story. Look at the Institute for Government’s (IFG) Public Services Performance Tracker for a plain assessment of A&E corridor care, councils struggling to meet the demands of social care and the Send system, the courts backlog, GP caseloads or families lost in temporary accommodation. A chancellor approaching a budget is besieged by need. It’s easy for us journalists to pick out shock stories and claim each one is an absolute priority, but how should a chancellor choose?

Today it’s the probation officers, whose conference in Newcastle is launching a ballot for industrial action. Their caseloads overflowed long ago, but now thousands of prisoners released early – 2,000 this month – have been thrust upon them. The responsibility is overwhelming, with officers blamed for crimes their clients commit.

The probation story is told in scores of reports: the National Audit Office found the service running on half the staff needed to cover released prisoners. It also reported failures in electronic tagging, echoed by the IFG reporting only 55% of tags were fitted in time. Napo, the probation officers’ union, blames the problems on awarding contracts to the lowest bidders at prices that mean the job isn’t done properly.

The number of offenders charged with serious further offences while on probation has increased, with the public accounts committee blaming staff shortages. Vacancies leave probation services 25%-30% below target levels. The government is training another 1,300, but that’s not enough, says Napo, considering the high dropout rate once recruits discover the abuse, threats and stress of the work, alongside the fact that the most common cause of staff sickness is mental ill health.

The sheer impossibility of their caseloads caused the government to abandon any attempt to say what their caseload should be, so the “workload measurement tool” was abruptly ditched in September just before the October raft of new prisoner releases. There is no point in stating an official workload standard that can’t be met.

Eleven hostels and seven halfway houses, places that help probation officers supervise released prisoners, have just closed for repairs and because of a lack of staff. Drug addiction and mental health problems untreated in prisons, coupled with cuts to education, training and rehabilitation, make prisoners even less prepared for release.

The probation system was broken by a disastrous privatisation when Chris Grayling (who banned the sending of books to prisoners) split it apart into 21 private companies, with the workforce organisationally divided in two. Private companies only handled offenders judged low to medium risk, while the most serious offenders remained under the control of the state. Companies under-invested, experienced staff left, and none of the innovation promised was delivered. After this ideological privatisation was abandoned in 2021, the probation service never recovered.

The lord chancellor is set to address the probation officer’s conference. “But please,” says Napo chair Ben Cockburn, “no bullshit. Don’t tell us how well we do an exceptionally difficult job. We know that.”. Napo rejected a 5% pay offer on the grounds it falls far behind equivalent offers to workers in local government, police and social work. Under planned industrial action, Cockburn says probation officers will work to contract and refuse unpaid overtime. That, he says, will cause collapse.

What probation officers need immediately is reduced workloads, pruned to the riskiest cases, leaving less serious cases unallocated. “Put the service into special measures,” Cockburn says. He also wants the courts to stop piling on more cases until there are enough staff to cope. “We are firefighting from one emergency to another,” he says – or called away to someone in a police cell, or to a paedophile found dating a woman with a child, or a domestic violence case.

Cutting workloads for probation officers is only a short-term solution, one that avoids the real question. Why is there an ever-rising prison population, despite the sustained, multi-decade fall in crime rates?

“We are addicted to prison,” Cockburn says. In his view, probation works when officers have time for long-term working relationships with offenders. “It’s the best job in the world,” he says, recalling the journey of one prisoner who had committed a terrible crime as a young man. “I saw him in prison, knew him for 15 years, with time for therapeutic work.” But, these days, that’s so rare. “Someone now might see eight different officers, retelling their story over and over, creating no trust.”

Why build more prison cells? An inspection of a brand new private prison, HMP Millsike in East Yorkshire, found it unsafe due to a lack of experienced staff, as well as chronic staff shortages. Even at its opening, it was “chaotic”, lacking basic processes for important things like locking doors and counting prisoners. Hundreds of cells are still empty because of a lack of officers.

--oo00oo--

So, what would 'special measures' mean? According to AI:-

If you are following current justice system reforms, calls to put probation into special measures are almost always referring to the institutional turnaround framework to prevent the service from collapsing under the weight of the prison capacity crisis.

Putting the Probation Service into special measures means placing it under a strict, time-limited intervention framework triggered by severe organizational underperformance, safety failures, or critical staff shortages.

When a public sector institution in the UK criminal justice system (such as a prison or a regional probation delivery unit) enters special measures, it signals that standard operations have failed and external authority must step in to stabilize the service.

Organizational Turnaround (The Institutional Meaning): As described above, it is an enforcement framework used by the government when an agency is failing its basic duty to protect the public.

Key Operational Changes
  • Loss of Operational Autonomy: Senior leadership faces intense external scrutiny. A specialized oversight board or external management team usually steps in to run or strictly monitor operations.
  • Emergency Workload Restructuring: Frontline staff and unions often call for special measures to force the government to legally reduce extreme caseloads. This allows practitioners to focus only on high-risk offenders, leaving lower-risk cases unallocated or managed via automated tracking.
  • Emergency Funding and Resources: The Ministry of Justice may inject emergency capital, bypass hiring bottlenecks, or deploy "detached duty" staff from other regions to fill severe vacancy gaps.
  • Mandatory Action Plans: The service is legally compelled to publish and execute a strict turnaround plan, typically within a window of a few weeks, addressing specific failures like public protection shortfalls or vetting delays.
  • HM Inspectorate of Probation will conduct frequent, unannounced follow-up reviews to ensure compliance, rather than waiting for standard inspection cycles.
--oo00oo--

We've already had one response:-

I’m not convinced that calling for probation to be put into special measures is the right strategy. It focuses on framing probation as a failing service that needs hope, help and government intervention and restructuring, rather than exposing the consequences of years of underinvestment, excessive workloads, poor pay and difficulties retaining and recruiting experienced staff.

The priority should be a sustained campaign for better pay and conditions, manageable workloads and the resources needed to deliver an effective service. These are the measures that would help retain experienced staff, attract new recruits and improve outcomes.

Calling for special measures risks handing the government the justification to restructure the service on its own terms, potentially with union consent, as happened in the past, rather than forcing it to address the issues that have brought probation to this point.

Let’s not allow union failure to hand over defeat. Probation needs investment, not a declaration of surrender. The unions should be using their collective strength to demand the conditions necessary for the service to succeed, not inadvertently strengthening the case for further government intervention.

Reading Anonymous, 15 October 2026, 23:04 — satire or not — while the AGM sabre-waves and applauds, this is the reality. The question is whether union leadership is prepared to fight for the future of probation and the people who deliver it, or whether it is helping to pave the way for another government-led restructuring.

*Postscript

Just noticed Cummings "calls on voters to back Reform UK in bombshell defection". This from AI:-

Dominic Cummings is not traditionally a "right-wing loony," though critics from both the left and right often view him as a disruptive, iconoclastic, and polarizing political strategist.

Key Context About His Politics and Reputation:

Not a Party Member: Cummings has never been a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party (and has frequently expressed deep contempt for mainstream Tory politicians, MPs, and party structures, which he has described as "dead" or incompetent).

Ideological Stance: He is best known as a committed Eurosceptic and the mastermind behind the 2016 Vote Leave campaign, rather than a standard left-right partisan. His primary obsessions are institutional disruption, overhauling the civil service, and using data and technology to reform state machinery.

How Others Describe Him:

Former Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron famously labeled him a "career psychopath".

Journalists and biographers frequently describe him as a "brilliant eccentric", an "evil genius", or a ruthless pragmatist rather than an ideological extremist.

Critics on the political left accuse his brand of "disruption" of advancing a right-wing, anti-public-service agenda, while traditional conservatives have often resented his disregard for party traditions and hierarchy.

43 comments:

  1. What’s the Anonymous, 15 October 2026, 23:04 — satire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spoof piece from General Secretary in comments yesterday.

      Delete
    2. Haha. Guardian’s Polly Toynbee should have led with that. Highlights the drivel we’ve had from Napo.

      Delete
    3. Is the pending Probation Reorganisation Without Direction? That’s the question being asked.

      Delete
    4. .. not by Napo.. not at this AGM?

      Delete
  2. I'm not sure, personally, that i want to work in a services that only deals with 'high' risk, apart from the fact risk is dynamic many offenders deemed low or med risk actually need our help and support. We risk encouraging the full creation of a community prison if we ask only to deal with a certain group. In my mind, if Officers were given back there powers of Proffesional discretion and decided contact levels etc on there own caseloads, this would allow to demonstrate our actual skills and knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree...however focusing on high risk offenders under the guise of "it's RNR" is exactly what OFPS has done. OFPS has done nothing to alleviate the caseload of many officers because most will be allocated tiers A to C which as far as I can work out creates little difference. The resource has been freed up in the lower tiers which alleviates the workload of PSOs while severely restricting the possibility of addressing complex needs where that is necessary. What OFPS failed to do in any way shape or form is to address the "wastage" and misdirected time at the higher tiers. It's also failed to address the increase in the proportion of the caseload assessed as high risk over the past ten years, the accompanying higher rates of recall, and the fear or other causes that have potentially driven these things. Absolutely nothing has been done to address this and in my view this is exactly where the "25%" capacity could easily have been found alongside streamlining our very clunky and duplicative assessment system and other over processed tasks we meaninglessly complete dutifully every day. They seem to have imposed a regime of "cutting services entirely for the lower tiers" as the solution to the capacity crisis while totally ignoring the "N" in "RNR".

      Delete
  3. Work to contracted hours and don’t do overtime been doing that for years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All these managers are using co-pilot to write insanely long emails with an endless number of tasks for their staff to complete. What is taking them only a minute to write up is giving hours of work to staff whilst the email itself makes them looks so efficient and makes staff feel rubbish thinking their manager is spending hours typing out all these emails. The reality is if managers had to type out this quantity of tasks manually themselves they wouldn't do it. This imbalance needs to be addressed. We've seen it as well with patients using AI to write complaints that are pages long but probably only took them a minute to write but the GP surgeries can't cope with trying to respond to them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. We've been stuck in this doom loop, probation's very own groundhog day, year after year after year and NOTHING has changed for the better... perhaps with the exception of the privileged, well-paid & feted few who, whilst profiting personally in every sense of the word 'profiting' (bonuses, promotions, gilt-edged pensions, lump sum pay-offs, gongs, etc), MUST BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE SHITSHOW.

    Feb 2026 - https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/211693/probation-services-pushed-to-the-brink-of-collapse-in-england-and-wales-risk-endangering-public/

    2025 - https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/safe-for-all-how-austerity-wrecked-the-probation-service/

    2024 - https://unison.org.uk/news/2024/06/opinion-10-reasons-why-civil-service-cant-do-probation

    2023 - https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/society/prison-and-probation-staffing-dangerously-low-after-botched-privatisation/

    2019 - https://news.sky.com/story/probation-service-left-in-fragile-state-after-revamp-11709630

    2018 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44568810 ("Probation system 'a mess' despite reforms, say MPs")

    2016 - https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/transforming-rehabilitation-end-probation-service

    2015 - https://insidetime.org/mailbag/the-probation-service-just-isnt-working/

    2014 - https://www.parliament.uk/external/committees/committee-news-pre-oct-2020/2014/may/publication-of-report-probation-and-the-criminal-justice-system/ ("Probation Service reforms carry significant risks")

    In plain sight, & before an audience of millions, successive governments & their civil service lackeys have ritually & rigorously shafted the probation service. Those who were supposedly "in charge" colluded with & took key roles in the structural rape & pillage of a critical social service, walking away when their work was done, pockets stuffed with cash from the public purse & having the brass neck to claim they were "leaders".

    They were leeches; parasitic predators prepared to say & do anything for personal gain ... the antithesis of what the probation service stands for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2005 and the implementation of automatic release of prisoners on the halfway point (a move to reduce prison capacity), with the universal supervision by probation for the second half of sentence signalled the real terminal decline of the probation service.
      Everyone went to probation, suitable or not, beneficial or not, needed or not. The nature and the purpose of probation changed overnight. It lost its own unique identity and purpose within the CJS, and became an extention of the prison sentence itself. Inevitably it began to be shaped and molded to suit its new purpose. It became about finishing a sentence rather then being focused on new beginings.
      The real crisis in the CJS is that there is just too many people being funneld into probation, and for what purpose?
      Who is the real beneficiary of todays probation service?

      https://insidetime.org/ray-says/more-support-not-more-cells-will-cut-reoffending/

      'Getafix

      Delete
  6. Including the Chief Officers from the Probation Service paid off to accept TR. They must be so proud of themselves for that 'achievement ' .

    ReplyDelete
  7. The comment about managers using Copilot to produce increasingly lengthy emails and lists of tasks raises an interesting point, particularly alongside the introduction of Justice Transcribe.

    We are repeatedly told that technology and AI will improve efficiency and free up practitioner time. But efficiency for whom?
    If AI enables someone to generate pages of instructions, actions and expectations in minutes, while the people receiving them spend hours reading, interpreting, completing and evidencing those tasks, have we actually saved any time? Or have we simply transferred the workload elsewhere?

    The same principle applies to case recording. The ability to produce an extensive, polished narrative does not necessarily mean that the quality of supervision has improved. Nor does the volume of information recorded tell us much about the quality of the interaction itself.

    There's a danger that we increasingly confuse the appearance of productivity with meaningful professional work.
    And this brings us back to the discussion about probation being ‘not fit for purpose’. Before introducing further restructuring, new processes or technological solutions, perhaps we should examine how much of a PPs working day is spent responding to demands generated by the organisation itself, rather than working directly with people.

    I’m certainly not opposed to technology that genuinely reduces duplication, supports professional judgement and gives us more time to do our jobs. But that should be the test of whether it is successful. If the time saved by one person simply creates additional work for several others, it isn’t really an efficiency saving at all.

    Perhaps we need to spend less time measuring how much work is being produced and more time considering whether that work is necessary, proportionate and actually making a difference. Because a service can become increasingly efficient at generating activity without becoming any more effective at delivering probation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Staff members need to copy and paste the list of tasks in the email into AI and ask how long AI estimates all these tasks will take to be completed then send it back to the manager.

      Delete
  8. I find myself wondering how many more times probation can be declared broken before somebody seriously questions why we keep expecting the people delivering it to hold everything together.

    We’ve had years of reform, restructuring, reunification, transformation and revised operating models. Each arrives with promises of improvement, yet somehow the pressures on the frontline remain, and the distance between what we’re expected to deliver and what we’re realistically able to deliver seems to grow.

    And now we’re talking about special measures.

    Perhaps what’s most disheartening is that so much of this discussion focuses on what needs to happen to probation, rather than what has happened to the people working within it.

    Being a PP carries enormous responsibility. We make decisions that affect people’s liberty, their families, victims and public safety. We work with individuals whose circumstances are often complex, unpredictable and distressing. We are expected to recognise risk, respond to it, support rehabilitation, enforce conditions and exercise sound professional judgement, sometimes in circumstances where there are no straightforward answers.
    And we carry those decisions home with us.

    Yet the value placed on that responsibility seems increasingly difficult to reconcile with the pay, workloads and working conditions attached to it.

    Pay isn’t simply about wanting more money. It’s about recognising professional expertise, retaining experience and acknowledging the level of responsibility the role carries. You can't continually tell PPs how vital they are to public protection while treating their remuneration and working conditions as though they are incidental to delivering it.

    Nor can you keep recruiting your way out of a retention problem without asking why experienced people are leaving, or why those who remain are becoming increasingly disillusioned.

    What troubles me most is how normalised the situation has become. Excessive workloads, competing demands, insufficient time for meaningful supervision and the constant pressure to demonstrate that everything has been completed are discussed almost as though they are unavoidable features of the profession.

    They shouldn’t be!

    The comment about restricting probation to high-risk cases is particularly concerning. Of course we must prioritise public protection, but probation should be more than a mechanism for managing those assessed as presenting the greatest risk. People do not arrive neatly divided into those who need help and those who don’t. Risk changes, circumstances change, and sometimes it is the relationship with a PP that makes it possible to recognise those changes before they become something more serious.

    We talk endlessly about risk, but increasingly seem unwilling to give PPs the time, continuity and professional discretion needed to understand it properly.

    And that brings me back to special measures. If it means government finally accepting that the demands placed upon probation are incompatible with the resources available, then perhaps that conversation is overdue.

    But if it becomes another exercise in restructuring, increased oversight and telling PPs how to do more with less, I struggle to see what it will achieve.

    I don’t want to work in a service where the ambition is simply to survive the working week, complete the required processes and hope nothing goes wrong.

    I want probation to be a profession where experience matters, judgement is trusted, relationships are valued and PPs have the time to do work that actually makes a difference. That shouldn’t be an unrealistic aspiration. Yet increasingly it feels like one.

    Perhaps the saddest indictment of where probation finds itself is that we are no longer asking how good the service could be. We’re asking how much worse it can get before somebody does something about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not fit for purpose? Then its time to measure it - again:

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ministry-of-justice-data-first

    "Data from the courts, prison and probation services in England and Wales have been linked to enable new and innovative analysis of user journeys, interactions, and outcomes across the justice system. The programme is also enhancing the linking of justice data with other government departments, including education data from the Department for Education’s (DfE) National Pupil Database (NPD)."

    ReplyDelete
  10. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-courts-in-the-north-to-help-women-break-the-cycle-of-reoffending

    "Three new Intensive Supervision Courts will tackle addiction and trauma driving women’s crime in North of England

    Courts now open in West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Northumbria to help women break the cycle of reoffending

    New approach has found to reduce offending by a third in other countries

    Measures include tagging and engaging with drug and alcohol treatment or trauma-informed services to hold women accountable for their offences whilst addressing the underlying cause.

    This world-recognised approach has been shown to reduce reoffending by a third in the US."

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've been biting my tongue on this for some time now - but I feel I must raise it. Many of us resisted using the term 'Offender Manager' for many years, but here we are being rebranded yet again as 'Probation Practitioner' instead of 'Probation Officer' or Probation Services Officer'. I assume we haven't re-branded 'Senior Probation Officer' to 'Senior Probation Practitioner' or have we? I find the re-branding irritating and demeaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great & the good are now collectively known as the "excellent leaders" aren't they?

      Delete
    2. The problem is when shortened to PP …

      Pee Pee may refer to:

      Slang for pen*s, urine or urination

      Delete
    3. 'Probation Practitioner' is fine as a global term such as 'Police Officer' which covers all grades warranted to make arrests from PC to Chief Constable - should be same for probation in my view covering all grades licenced to carry out relevant functions from PO, PSO up to Chief Officer.

      Delete
    4. Well that’s not going to happen. That approach would coincide with creating a professional identity that reinforces Probation Service / Probation officer. It’d be quite simple to have a Probation Service with a universal Probation Officer, I agree, with Registered PO (qualified) and PO (PSO / unqualified). Instead we’re going on the other direction with endless changes of title. COM and PP being the worst. There was a recent consultation, did you have your say?

      https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/independent-statutory-regulation-of-probation-prac/

      Probation officer PO
      Probation service officer PSO
      Responsible officer RO
      Offender manager OM
      Community offender manager COM
      Probation practitioner PP (or Pee Pee)
      Registered probation officer
      Registered probation practitioner

      Delete
    5. Community Justice Operative is on the way, have no doubt.

      Delete
    6. 'Registered Probation Officer' FFS! We seem to manage ok without Registered Doctor at the surgery. Ok they usually state qulifications - so could probation staff. And yes it acknowledges a professional identity.

      Delete
    7. Ahem! But your doctor is also a General Practitioner GP, and has a recognised professional identity. Similar to social workers, who tend to put qualified, registered and qualifications on their signatures.

      To practice as a registered social worker in England, you must be officially registered with the specialist regulator, Social Work England. The title of "social worker" is legally protected across the UK.

      Delete
    8. Just a curious thought, but what description of professional identity would be acceptable to use if asked to sign a passport application?
      I really don't know, but a passport is a very serious document, so I'd assume the professional status of whoever is signing to give verification to the applicant would be very limited.
      I know a probation officer can sign, as can a doctor, but maybe other terms such as probation practitioner or registered this or that would be to broad a terminology to be acceptable?
      Just curious.

      'Getafix

      Delete
    9. Anon 12:39 I was legally able to practice by virtue of my employment as a Probation Officer by virtue of my CQSW and was officially appointed to my local Petty Sessional Division. Ok it all changed as we know, but in my eyes employment as a Probation Officer qualified me to practice, got me into High Security prisons and accepted as official when signing Passport applications.

      Delete
    10. Explicitly states “probation officer”, meaning qualified and not Ro, Om, Com or Pee Pee. I take it to not mean Pso - unqualified.
      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-accept-a-vouch-as-evidence-of-someones-identity/who-can-vouch-for-someones-identity

      Delete
    11. Jim, as someone of the same. Your qualification made you a qualified social worker, enabled you to practice as a probation officer. If registered with the social work council your a registered social worker and last year probation made you a registered probation officer.

      Like a social worker or a medical practitioner, the probation officer is a title but there are differences and you should be qualified or registered to use it. Otherwise it gets confused by pso’s who are not qualified, prison officers calling themselves offender supervisors and police calling themselves offender managers.

      Delete
    12. I know - and nobody confuses PC's with PCSO's - same situation with PO's and PSO's. Quite simple in my book.

      Delete
    13. Yes - PO (qualified), PSO (unqualified), Probation Service (rehabilitation, reintegration, reparation). We understand that. Problem is we’ve nothing to do with designing the future of the UK Corrections and Aftercare Service!

      Delete
    14. “nobody confuses PC's with PCSO's”. Nobody calls them police officers either. Same as a medical assistant is not a doctor or dentist.

      Delete
  12. more pilots than easyjet

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/technology-to-bolster-justice-for-victims-as-government-responds-to-leveson

    "Virtual Remand Hearings to be piloted in courtrooms across the country
    Government responds to all 180 recommendations in Criminal Courts Review
    Comes as the Courts and Tribunals Bill returns to Parliament tomorrow* (link below)

    Recommended in Lord Leveson’s Review and backed by £17.4 million, the Government’s latest technology drive will be piloted in at least four police force areas across the country."

    * https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-10-13/debates/0DDF8CB8-9185-4AE3-B47F-6120C460495A/CourtsAndTribunalsBill

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mickey Mouse PQIP

    ReplyDelete
  14. "An inmate already serving 16 life sentences at the Arizona State Prison Complex,Tucson was involved in an incident on April 4, 2025 where three fellow inmates convicted of crimes against minors 'lost their lives' in one morning. The prisoner allegedly responsible said 'Well, now taxpayers don't have to pay for them'.

    Ricky Wassenaar (63 years old) was serving 16 consecutive life sentences. According to the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry (ADCRR), Wassenaar acted alone with intent to harm the three men. He was charged with triple homicide, pleaded not guilty, and is scheduled for trial from January 25 to March 27, 2028"

    And our politicians & senior civil servants go to the usa for inspiration???

    ReplyDelete
  15. its looking like very little is 'not fit for purpose' these days:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm62y80yxw9vo

    "Companies exploiting welfare system by using residents as 'cash cows'

    Some private companies are making huge profits and exploiting the welfare system by receiving housing benefits on behalf of residents but failing to give them the support they are required to, BBC Panorama has found.

    Property agents are drawing people into the taxpayer-funded system using social media videos that offer free rooms, PlayStation consoles and even holidays.

    The system - called supported exempt accommodation (SEA) - is designed for people in the UK with additional needs, including former prisoners, people recovering from addiction and women fleeing domestic abuse. It provides housing along with care, support and supervision.

    For many residents it works well to help them get back on their feet, but charities, politicians and residents tell us parts of the system are being exploited.

    There are often complicated, multi-layered financial and management arrangements in place."

    bbcpanorama

    ReplyDelete
  16. If probation is not for for purpose then those who designed it this way are likewise and any clear out needs to start at the very top !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/oct/18/what-gets-in-the-way-of-prisoners-rehabilitation

      'Getafix

      Delete
    2. What gets in the way of prisoners’ rehabilitation

      Your editorial on overcrowded prisons and probation (13 October) was most welcome as it highlights a crisis in community justice that shows little sign of abating. You say that problems date back to the failed part-privatisation of the probation service, but in reality political interference has been happening for far longer than that.

      Having worked for years as a prison probation officer and then in an aftercare and resettlement unit for ex-offenders, I saw good practice and ongoing practical and emotional support that demonstrated all the important points raised by Enver Solomon in his recent Guardian article.

      Staff visited prisons and got to know inmates before they were released, which involved in-depth discussions of their offending history and what was needed for successful resettlement. Staff visited wet day centres for problem drinkers and established links with community organisations. They did not see themselves as the exclusive purveyors of rehabilitation.

      In 1984 the government produced a “statement of national objectives and priorities” that made work with prisoners low-profile, and the aftercare unit closed a few years later. When I tried, as part of my doctoral research, to interview probation staff in the 1990s about their role in prison resettlement, I found that such work had stopped.

      Since then, probation officers have increasingly lost their autonomy – and the opportunity and permission to get to know the people they supervise. Risk has become the driving force, resulting in an incredible rate of offenders breaching their licence conditions and being returned to prison.

      Probation staff are told to be more professionally curious and to give hope to offenders. The service has struggled to hit its targets, but has surely lost the point of its work, which is not the fault of its hard‑working staff. Action is required, now.
      Anthony Goodman
      Professor of community justice, Middlesex University

      Your editorial on rehabilitation in prison makes some important points. It is also worth noting the political hypocrisy around this issue. The Barlinnie Special Unit, which did change people in prison, was closed in 1994, while the rehabilitation policies pursued in Grendon Underwood, which opened in 1962, have rarely been extended into the main system.

      Why? Because these places challenged the decades‑long political obsession with punishment and deterrence. Whether or not the “Scandi” units at Wandsworth and Pentonville in London, which pursue a similar philosophy to Barlinnie and Grendon, will also be marginalised and ignored remains to be seen.

      More broadly, rehabilitation will not work in a society divided by brutal social divisions, a point made by Victoria Law in her book “Prisons Make Us Safer”: And 20 Other Myths About Mass Incarceration: “What does it mean to rehabilitate a person to their former state if that state involves poverty, racism, unemployment, unstable housing, and/or violence? Can a person be rehabilitated if they have never been habilitated (or made fit or capable for society)?”

      We must address these issues, stop prison building, redirect the billions wasted on prisons towards probation and other radical alternatives, and reduce sentence lengths, or the devastating cycle of crisis/reform/crisis will only continue and intensify inside.
      Joe Sim
      Emeritus professor of criminology, Liverpool John Moores University

      Delete
    3. Your editorial rightly highlights that the government must prove community supervision works to win support for early releases, while calling for a “person-centred” approach and noting the value of “purposeful activity”.

      At LandWorks, a charity providing intensive placements for people on licence or serving community sentences, we see every day that community projects can deliver powerful results. By providing person-centred support wrapped around meaningful, purposeful work and the building of trust, real change can and does happen.

      There are many men and women in the system who want to change their lives but face huge hurdles – addiction issues, chaotic home lives, little or no employment history and failed relationships. Providing consistent support can transform lives and reduce the likelihood of further offending. Our independently analysed reoffending rates can attest to that.

      The voluntary sector already holds blueprints for breaking the cycles of prison overcrowding, recall and reoffending. A commitment from the government to learn from these existing successful models could transform our criminal justice system and improve public confidence. Rehabilitation and resettlement support makes a huge difference when delivered effectively.
      Chris Parsons
      Project director, LandWorks

      The debate over early release from prison masks a deeper issue. The underlying problem is a failure to invest properly in early intervention and prevention.

      The prison governor Polly Toynbee spoke with was right to highlight the need for early-years support (Britain is addicted to prisons. Our crumbling probation service proves they don’t work, 16 October). School exclusion, episodes of going missing and disruption in childhood are often warning signs of the harm and offending that may follow.

      Trusted-adult mentoring can make a decisive difference. Giving a young person someone to turn to in a moment of stress can help prevent that moment from ending with a weapon being picked up.

      St Giles and other like-minded organisations provide this support in schools, with positive results: a 21% reduction in violence and a 14% decrease in offending, according to the Youth Endowment Fund.

      The same approach can support people serving sentences in the community, helping them to access services that address the root causes of offending while strengthening the effectiveness of community sentences.

      But investment alone is not enough. We must also rethink our justice system and ask who genuinely needs to be in prison. Effective community-based solutions already exist; expanding them would tackle the causes of offending, while easing the intense pressure on prisons and probation staff.
      Tracey Burley
      Chief executive, St Giles

      Delete
    4. Nice words and trip down memory lane from the comfy criminology office. I’d rather listen to voices from the frontline - we never hear those!

      Delete

  17. From UKAuthority news:-
    An AI transcription tool introduced for probation officers is saving around 450,000 hours of staff time a year, according to a new case study from the National Audit Office (NAO)

    Justice Transcribe, developed by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS), helps probation officers record notes of their meetings with people on probation. It was tested in 2025, piloted the same year, and rolled out to all officers between February and March 2026.

    The NAO's study says the tool reduces the time officers spend writing meeting notes, improves the quality of those notes, and improves engagement between officers and the people they supervise, because officers are no longer focused on note-taking during meetings.

    MoJ is now exploring the use of the tool in other settings, including the prison and courts systems, and with the police.

    As well as describing how the tool was identified, developed, tested and scaled, the case study sets out five steps for public sector organisations considering similar productivity initiatives: identifying opportunities for improvement, developing solutions that meet operational needs, implementing change at scale, realising and sustaining benefits, and embedding improvements into business-as-usual operations.

    Across each step it emphasises engaging frontline staff, testing approaches before wider rollout, managing organisational change effectively and maintaining a focus on long-term value for money.

    Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: "Improving productivity is essential if public services are to meet increasing demand with limited resources.

    "This case study highlights practical lessons to help organisations identify opportunities for improvement, implement change successfully and realise productivity benefits by saving staff time."

    The publication is the first in a series of NAO case studies highlighting practical steps public bodies have taken to improve productivity and the lessons others can learn from them. The study is on the NAO website.

    In September the NAO published a lessons learned report on managing digital identity, highlighting the ongoing challenges for the government in improving digital access to public services despite the cancellation of its digital ID plans.

    ReplyDelete