Just recently this forum has moved at a cracking pace and on a number of fronts, but in the process I think much tends not to register, so on occasion I think it's useful to revisit:-
****
Corporate bullying has become much more subtle in recent years with them adapting a lawfare type approach……present a problem and you are the only one, with it…or so you are told…..ask an inexperienced SPO to make a 50/50 decision and most will have to ask their manager or ask you to ask them….we live under constant threat of capability proceedings or if we work to our hours, we are somehow letting the side down, probation is fuelled by goodwill, remove that and who knows what would happen……..
****
"Local delivery is important, but structures alone won’t restore the profession. That requires leadership which values experience, encourages constructive challenge, understands frontline realities and recognises that professional expertise is not confined to those occupying management positions."
And therein lies one of the biggest hurdles - getting those with authority & influence to accept that centralising, privatising & re-unifying probation services was a total fuck up. This requires 'the centre' to openly admit that their raison d'etre was - and is - not just flawed, but built on years of lies, fabricated evidence & abusive practice.
It all followed on from the initial decisions to centralise in 1999 (new choreography), impose central control (noms), embed privatisation in law (OMA2007) and the subsequent ideological lunacy of 2013/4 whereby noms/hmpps intentionally targetted existing experienced staff & threw hundreds overboard. Why? It was essentially an attempt to remove &/or manage the discontented, the nay-sayers & those who voiced concerns: "take the money or we'll manage you out with nothing."
Using public funds (£80+million provided by the Cabinet Office) they facilitated a mass redundancy scheme (money the CRC owners misappropriated in most cases)... a scheme the unions signed off on, then in a fit of delayed guilt felt they ought to go for judicial review, realised they were hoist by their own petard, & hastily withdrew:
"• In February 2015, NAPO (the trade union and professional association for family court and probation staff) instituted a judicial review challenging the legality of the government's Transforming Rehabilitation contracts for the 21 community rehabilitation companies (CRCs).
• NAPO subsequently withdrew the judicial review and was ordered to pay the substantive costs of the legal proceedings."
****
The dialogue and subsequent comments says it all. Probation has become a poisonous, ‘them and us’ organisation. It will never recover what it previously delivered. The OFPS guarantees that PO’s will be sat delivering the Janet and John supervision model forever, using proscribed supervision sessions developed by people with no probation experience. I have the privilege to be able to evidence different roles completed such as community, resettlement, custody, IOM and a specialist role. A lot of those up the greasy pole do not have that experience and look at people like me as a challenge and threat. I am no threat I don’t want to progress I have enjoyed my probation experience. I have experience of managing at another organisation took a redundancy package that meant I was comfortable and able to take the pay drop to become a PO. I have previously had experienced SPOs and Senior Managers.
But things change and we work in a change environment. Unfortunately though it has not changed for the best, TR messed it completely and now we have SPOs and Senior Managers with no V or HROSH case management and hate it when their decisions evidence that limited knowledge, especially in the MAPPA arena, not understanding parole processes or registration for specific offences. It is embarrassing at times when you see a COM or POM advising them of their errors. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in probation, the highs the lows and the occasional conversation at the shops with people that I previously supervised both in the community and custody on community orders and licence. I don’t know if the new generation will have that experience or even make it passed ten years.
****
Re Probation has become poisonous. I posted this earlier on the post Our Future is Local.“The comments posted above just shows that HMPPS continues to operate with impunity. Two years after the Rademaker Review was completed we still have no change. Nor will there ever be.”.
In 20 something starting in PS, the working environment and the incompetence of managers was something of a culture shock. Got worse when I moved across to Sentence Management. Toxic, toxic, toxic. SPOs could talk the talk, but didn’t walk the talk. When challenging a SPO on how I was to achieve all the mandates of the National Standards with my caseload and not been given the required time to complete certain training without a caseload, the SPO actually said to me that National Standards was Probation myth and legend and didn’t exist. This was a SPO who spent his most of his day scouring the internet for news, properties on the market, sourcing companies to do renovations for his house, finding ammunition for his personal vendetta against former CRC SPO and the list goes on. This happened each and every day he was in office until his appearances in office eventually became an occasion to celebrate. I took great delight in getting an electronic copy of the National Standards and sending it to him saying here we go, not a Probation myth or legend. A lot of blustering later but no apology.
I do acknowledge that a lot of the PDU culture is down to the leadership (or lack thereof) at PDU level. The ‘Queen Bee Syndrome’ can be very prevalent in some PDUs. Yet other PDUs have wonderful and inspired leaders. These are the exception. Is a shame as the bad grapes should never have been promoted to ACOs. God only knows how they do the selection criteria.
I still cannot understand to this day as to how they (SPOs) knowingly are complicit in overworking and whipping staff (idiomatic metaphor) to achieve the performance metrics. They know it is impossible within current staff shortfalls of at least 25%, unmanageable caseloads for a 37 hour week forcing uncompensated overtime for those officers whose motivation is intrinsic. This, stagnant pay, as well as withholding of CBF and extensive delays of annual pay awards are systematic exploitation. It amounts to constructive wage theft and moral injury. The system is only functioning by extracting unsustainable amounts of emotional and physical Labour from its ever dwindling remaining workforce. There is no gratitude. Only bullying, coercion and control.
****
Let’s bust the myth, there is no leadership in the PS, nothing that would be recognised by those who have leadership and management qualifications of which I am one. They even have leadership courses but again no really recognised qualifications. One of my former colleagues said that they promote the incompetent as a result the organisation fails, you can read as many policies as you want if you cannot interpret them positively then as a manager you have failed, do as I say is not management, because I am telling you to is not management, I was told you had to do it this way is not management. Leaving your team members to face an SFO because of your incompetence is not management. So no leadership and no management equals probation currently and all the experienced POs leaving.
****
Re Probation has become poisonous. I posted this earlier on the post Our Future is Local.“The comments posted above just shows that HMPPS continues to operate with impunity. Two years after the Rademaker Review was completed we still have no change. Nor will there ever be.”.
In 20 something starting in PS, the working environment and the incompetence of managers was something of a culture shock. Got worse when I moved across to Sentence Management. Toxic, toxic, toxic. SPOs could talk the talk, but didn’t walk the talk. When challenging a SPO on how I was to achieve all the mandates of the National Standards with my caseload and not been given the required time to complete certain training without a caseload, the SPO actually said to me that National Standards was Probation myth and legend and didn’t exist. This was a SPO who spent his most of his day scouring the internet for news, properties on the market, sourcing companies to do renovations for his house, finding ammunition for his personal vendetta against former CRC SPO and the list goes on. This happened each and every day he was in office until his appearances in office eventually became an occasion to celebrate. I took great delight in getting an electronic copy of the National Standards and sending it to him saying here we go, not a Probation myth or legend. A lot of blustering later but no apology.
I do acknowledge that a lot of the PDU culture is down to the leadership (or lack thereof) at PDU level. The ‘Queen Bee Syndrome’ can be very prevalent in some PDUs. Yet other PDUs have wonderful and inspired leaders. These are the exception. Is a shame as the bad grapes should never have been promoted to ACOs. God only knows how they do the selection criteria.
I still cannot understand to this day as to how they (SPOs) knowingly are complicit in overworking and whipping staff (idiomatic metaphor) to achieve the performance metrics. They know it is impossible within current staff shortfalls of at least 25%, unmanageable caseloads for a 37 hour week forcing uncompensated overtime for those officers whose motivation is intrinsic. This, stagnant pay, as well as withholding of CBF and extensive delays of annual pay awards are systematic exploitation. It amounts to constructive wage theft and moral injury. The system is only functioning by extracting unsustainable amounts of emotional and physical Labour from its ever dwindling remaining workforce. There is no gratitude. Only bullying, coercion and control.
****
Let’s bust the myth, there is no leadership in the PS, nothing that would be recognised by those who have leadership and management qualifications of which I am one. They even have leadership courses but again no really recognised qualifications. One of my former colleagues said that they promote the incompetent as a result the organisation fails, you can read as many policies as you want if you cannot interpret them positively then as a manager you have failed, do as I say is not management, because I am telling you to is not management, I was told you had to do it this way is not management. Leaving your team members to face an SFO because of your incompetence is not management. So no leadership and no management equals probation currently and all the experienced POs leaving.
Anonymous25 October 2026 at 12:08
ReplyDelete“I’ve recently heard of retired and former heads of PDUs and senior managers returning as SPOs through the SPO returners scheme. What message does that send in remploying bullies, tyrants and yes-men when the profession needs renewal?
At some point, we have to stop recycling the same leadership and expecting different results. Clear out the top shelf, issue eviction notices to those occupying the ivory tower, and start again with people who bring fresh thinking, courage and a genuine commitment to change.
The pressures and challenges facing probation are not detached from its leadership. They have developed under many of the same faces and voices presiding over successive blows to the profession. And where is the space for a genuine diversity of age, gender, race, experience and ideas?
Probation does not just need leaders who speak out. It needs different leaders, prepared to challenge the status quo and rebuild the profession rather than simply manage its decline.”
And if this does not happen, nothing will change, gongs will be handed to their mates, our pay will be kept low, our autonomy eroded to the point were AI is believed before a person those at the top get paid to ride the storm………every CPO received three years pay just to push the split………and look how well that went…..07:21 is spot on…..
ReplyDelete"HMPPS acknowledges that the Probation Service is currently unsustainable"
ReplyDeleteI continue to be puzzled/frustrated by the incongruity of political claims that there's no money to pay frontline staff (probation/nhs/teaching/etc) a realistic & competitive wage for delivering the basic essentials BUT there are always vast sums of public cash for new projects/pilots & very well remunerated posts to oversee/execute those new ideas.
Equally I find it bizarre that the (predominantly right-leaning) voices cry "foul" in respect of "cheap immigrant labour" but consistently fail to condemn the wealthy employers who are more than happy to slash terms & conditions & pay shit wages rather than maintain a decent pay level for their employees. There would be no market for "cheap" labour if there were no pisspoor pay.
I've been trying to identify how/where the magical £700million is being spent. best I can do so far is:
Electronic Monitoring & Tagging Expansion (£100 million)
the onboarding of at least 1,300 additional trainee probation officers
Portions of the budget are earmarked for practical resettlement needs
May 2025, Irish Legal News said: "Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is reported to have secured £700 million in funding from the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, to buy nearly 30,000 additional electronic tags."
June 2025, the cobbler said: "To support this, the Probation Service will receive up to £700 million by the final year of this spending review.... This Government is investing up to £300 million in 2025-26, to keep prisons safe and secure."
(https://cdn.websitebuilder.service.justice.gov.uk/uploads/sites/13/2025/06/Repsonse-to-2024-IMB-national-annual-report.pdf)
March 2026, the cobbler also said: "a 45% increase on current funding – which will be spent on measures including tagging, accommodation, and a new commitment to onboard at least 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers in 2026/27."
The same question was asked here:
https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/PAC-inquiry-on-efficiency-and-resilience-of-the-probation-service-PRT-written-evidence.pdf
"How much will be targeted towards staff recruitment, retention and training; how much will be allocated for third sector providers of rehabilitation services; and howmuch will be spent on new electronic monitoring contracts — given the private sector’s poor track record in delivering these services?"
There doesn't appear to be an answer as such (anyone surproised?), but the NAO's observation is repeated:
“HMPPS acknowledges that the Probation Service is currently unsustainable, requiring significant corrective action. It has made pragmatic decisions to deal with staffing shortfalls by reducing rehabilitative activity and supervision, but these have not sufficiently reduced PO workloads. Further, to avoid running out of prison places, MoJ plans to implement legislative changes that will significantly increase demands on the Probation Service.”
Some of the concerns were highlighted by C4news factcheck:
july 2026: https://channel4news.substack.com/p/revealed-probation-units-working
What I find increasingly troubling about these accounts is the apparent imbalance between responsibility and authority within probation.
ReplyDeleteA PO is expected to understand complex risk, exercise sound judgement, identify emerging concerns, make defensible decisions and remain accountable when things go wrong. Yet some of the experiences described here suggest that the professional oversight they are supposed to receive can itself be inconsistent, inadequately informed or more concerned with procedural compliance than helping them reach a sound decision. And that raises a rather uncomfortable question. Who is accountable for the quality of the professional guidance being provided to those who carry responsibility for managing risk?
I’m certainly not suggesting every SPO lacks experience or that seniority automatically makes someone an effective leader. There are excellent managers, just as there are experienced POs whose knowledge and judgement deserve recognition. But professional oversight should be more than signing off assessments, checking that processes have been followed or ensuring that responsibility has been appropriately documented. It should involve the ability to examine evidence, challenge assumptions, recognise uncertainty and help a PO think through difficult decisions. It should also mean being prepared to take responsibility for the advice and direction given.
We frequently hear about the importance of defensible decision-making. Surely that principle should apply at every level of the organisation, not just to the person holding the case? And if staff feel unable to question decisions, highlight deficiencies or seek clarification without being labelled difficult, how can we genuinely claim to have a culture that supports effective risk management?
There's also a difference between managing performance and leading professionals. One is concerned with whether expectations have been met. The other requires understanding whether those expectations are reasonable, whether the work is being done well and what support people need to improve.
When experienced colleagues describe feeling unable to challenge, unsupported in difficult decisions or fearful of the consequences of speaking up, those accounts should prompt serious reflection, not simply another argument about who should be promoted or removed.
Perhaps instead of repeatedly asking whether POs are exercising sufficient professional judgement, we should be asking whether the organisation is providing the quality of professional leadership necessary to support it. Because accountability without authority is unfair, and authority without meaningful accountability is equally dangerous.
Neither is a sound foundation for public protection.
"Brown is not entitled to special treatment"
ReplyDeleteIt seems we DO have a two-tier justice sysytem after all - but not the one the whiney right-wing complain about.
"The victim, music producer Abe Diaw, needed hospital treatment for head and knee injuries, with CCTV showing Brown hitting Diaw on the head with a glass bottle... Judge Tony Baumgartner says "the repeated use" of a bottle was "plainly dangerous... He notes that Brown has "two previous convictions involving violence", dating to 2009 and 2013... he emphasises that Brown is not entitled to special treatment because of his "fame, commercial success, and professional standing"... R&B singer Chris Brown has been given eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months."
Oh. Okay.
Briefly re-visiting huw edwards' case: Sentencing Guidelines for possess Cat A images of children = Starting point of 1 year’s custody with a range of 26 weeks’ – 3 years’ custody
outcome: On September 16, 2024, Chief Magistrate Paul Goldspring sentenced Edwards to a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years with Additional Orders: He was ordered to complete a 40-day Sex Offender Treatment Programme, 25 rehabilitation activity requirement sessions, pay £3,000 in prosecution costs plus a £128 surcharge, and be placed on the sex offenders' register for seven years.
In brown's case (dealt with today) almost every aggravating factor was present:
* Targeting of individual(s) by a group
* Use of a weapon to inflict violence
* Use of serious or sustained violence
* Serious physical injury to others
* Serious fear/distress caused
* previous convictions
* incident occurred in busy public area (a London nightclub)
(charges of assault, attempting to cause grievous bodily harm, and having an offensive weapon were dropped in favour of Affray).
But I guess the prisons are full, so, hey-hum.