Morality

Over the past week, BBC Radio 4 has delivered two very pertinent programmes that directly impinge upon probation's professional dilemma and our continuing discussion of it. To me, both raise fundamental issues that go to the very core of our work, or more correctly should, and serve to reinforce the utter folly of the path politicians have forced us down over recent decades, especially removing the requirement for social work training. Both programmes would reward the time spent locating them on BBC Sounds and I would therefore encourage readers to seek them out.

Speaking personally, each resonates with much of my professional practice over the years, my thinking, my concerns and the factors so often on my mind as I interviewed clients, read the evidence, processed the information and laboured over the pre-sentence reports. It also often spurred me on to seek expert assessment, opinion and 'treatment' that would hopefully improve outcomes, not just for society, but for the individual concerned.

How a killer turned his life around

On the night of 31 July, 2011, the lives of Jacob Dunne, David Hodgkinson and Joan Scourfield changed forever. In the midst of a face-off at a Nottingham pub, fuelled by drink and a need to impress his friends, 18-year-old Jacob threw a punch at James Hodgkinson, David and Joan’s son. James died a few days later.

Radio 4's The Punch tells the unlikely story of rehabilitation and achievement undertaken by Jacob through restorative justice and with the help and support of the parents of the young man he killed. Jacob has been on a journey that has taken him from offender to justice campaigner, but he is still getting to grips with his reformed character status.

Aged 19, Jacob Dunne was convicted of manslaughter for killing a man with a single punch. This is the story of Jacob's transformation, with help from the unlikeliest of places.

--oo00oo--

This edition of the Moral Maze makes reference to The Punch and although some exchanges are irritating and border upon the surreal, I couldn't help but feel how 20 years ago a probation officer's view would have benefitted the discourse enormously! Sadly I suspect the producer never gave it a thought and they were probably right. Oh, how we have become so irrelevant! 

I was also starkly reminded that a staggering 30% of prisoners are estimated to be within a broad category of learning difficulties and disabilities. Listening to this debate, one cannot help but feel we are paying the cost of having all-but ditched PSR's from probation's core function.  

How much should we consider the role of moral luck?

The Channel 4 documentary, ‘Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ has carried out a controversial genetic analysis of the Nazi leader. The test shows "very high" scores - in the top 1% - for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This not a diagnosis, however, and there have been concerns about whether such speculation stigmatises these conditions. 

While we shouldn’t seek to explain a person’s moral character and actions simply through genetics, there are many other aspects of our lives we can’t control, and which can nevertheless influence our behaviour and the judgements of others. These, include our upbringing and the circumstances we happen to be placed in (war, oppression, abuse) as well as the outcome of our actions (e.g. whether someone happens get away drink-driving, or not). If this is all a question of moral luck, how much should it be taken into consideration in our judgments of others? And where does that leave human agency, responsibility and culpability?

One view is that moral blame should be based solely on someone’s intentions and the choices they make. Moral responsibility, it’s argued, rests on rational will, and unlucky life chances should not excuse bad or criminal behaviour. However, in the criminal justice system, mitigating circumstances, while not excusing bad behaviour, are presented to reduce the severity of a person's culpability. 

How do we untangle what is in someone’s control, and what is a matter of luck, when it comes to the combinations of nature and nurture that make up the people we are? If we focus too much the things we can’t control, would we ever be able to make any moral judgments at all? Or should we think more about the presence of moral luck in our everyday lives and work harder to understand rather than blame? 

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Sonia Sodha, Jonathan Sumption and Inaya, Folarin-Iman. Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow, Peter Bleksley, Susan Blackmore and David Enoch.

--oo00oo--

Of course both the above set the scene rather nicely for the BBC's flagship Reith Lectures starting next Tuesday morning at 9am:-

"We are delighted to announce Rutger Bregman as the 2025 Reith Lecturer. Bregman has consistently challenged us to reimagine the world as he thinks it could and should be. His Reith lectures are a provocation - arguing that we are in an age of crisis, but offering hope about where we could go from here. They promise to kick off a lively and important conversation about the age we are living through and what should come next”. 

Mohit Bakaya, Director of Speech and Controller of BBC Radio 4 and 4 Extra

BBC Reith Lectures 2025 – Moral Revolution

Bregman's 2025 Reith Lectures will reflect on moments in history, including the likes of the suffragette and abolitionist movements, which have sparked transformative moral revolutions, offering hope for a new wave of progressive change. Across four lectures, he will also consider the explosive technological progress of recent years - placing us at a moment of immense risk and possibility, and will look ahead to how we might shape the future.

Bregman is an author whose works include Humankind (2020) and Utopia for Realists (2017), which were both Sunday Times and New York Times best sellers,as well as Moral Ambition which was released earlier this year and was also a Sunday Times bestseller. His work has been translated into 46 languages and has sold over two million copies. During a discussion at the Davos World Economic Forum in 2019, he also attracted international attention for holding his billionaire fellow panellists to account for not paying their taxes.

And There You Have It!

Here’s an idea? Treat people with empathy and respect, stop behaving like a communist state police force and your punters might thrive better, progress and be more respectful to you, in turn you might enjoy what you do more.

*******

You what?! Nah, too much like hard work; it's easier to issue appointments, demand respect & breach when they don't play ball. Keeps the IT police off yer back, keeps the numbers right. As long as it's on the system in the 'correct' format, no-one gives a toss. HMIP can't find fault in the audit trail. £650 in the pocket for 35 hours a week, every week, good holidays & pension. Input whatever you need to & do as you please with the rest of the time. Piece of piss. And a free degree thrown in. Why stress?

New Narrative Required?

A recent reminder from regular contributor 'Getafix pointed us in the direction of the Revolving Doors charity and the following very insightful blog post from last October which we seem to have missed. Although apparently not attributed, I feel it's quite likely to be the work of their policy manager and former Probation Officer Kelly Grehan. We've featured her work before, for example here in 2023 The Need for Probation Reform and she is clearly 'on the money'. 

Time for a change in the narrative for probation and public expectations?

Few would disagree that we are in the midst of a criminal justice system crisis for England and Wales. Years of under-investment have come home to roost, with insufficient recognition of the interdependencies between the police, probation, prison, courts, Crown Prosecution Service and other essential services. Repair work is going to be complicated, but now is the time for a new government to rebuild a comprehensive, connected system fit for the future.

A shift in the rhetoric and public expectations of what can and cannot be achieved through community supervision will be essential. Public media coverage of probation practice is preoccupied with failure. This ranges from a surprise that probation practitioners do not have immediate access to accommodation for anyone being released homeless, to missed opportunities uncovered by serious further offence investigations, which report missed information sharing and swift enforcement opportunities.

It seems timely to ask: Are public expectations of what can be achieved through community supervision realistic and are recommendations being directed to the correct service/agency provider?

‘Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate’

I would argue that, unless there is a much wider shared community commitment to and understanding of inclusion and access to essential public services, then expectations and confidence in probation practice will remain stuck in an unrealistic and low place.

The excessive use of imprisonment may satisfy appetites for retribution, but the reality is that prisoners come from the community and, for the vast majority, return to the community. Rehabilitation does not end at the prison gate.

If we want to reduce the likelihood of reoffending then our communities need to be ready to support and improve access to providing accommodation, speedy access to mental health and substance misuse services and a readiness to accept and encourage ex-offenders into the workplace and education.

Frustration at lack of community support

Probation practitioners can signpost and support referrals to these essential services, but do they have confidence that the door will be open?

The probation service is one of the smallest and usually most invisible public services – unless something has gone wrong. The public usually shows little interest in the criminal courts and work of the probation service unless they or a member of their family work there or they have found themselves the wrong side of the law or a victim of crime.

Most who work in the criminal justice system are highly committed and passionate about their work, wanting to do all they can to prevent further harm, improve lives and develop safer communities. I don’t think in my forty plus years working in many different roles for probation I have ever met a colleague who did not think the justice system could be improved and did not remain frustrated at the lack of access to services in the community to support rehabilitation and reintegration.

Success stories for probation nearly always demonstrate examples of strong multi agency partnership work that support integration and celebrate the individuals’ efforts to move forward. The challenge has always been one of negotiating the tightrope between care and control.

I question whether we have shifted the expectations and balance too far in the direction of control, raising the bar for public protection measures so high for so many that we have lost sight of the imperative to support and nurture rehabilitation. All too often the starting point is “what is the risk assessment?” rather than “what is the risk and needs assessment”? Effective probation practice requires attention to both the management of risk of harm and reducing reoffending through well planned and delivered rehabilitation support services. If offenders get their lives back together the risk to the public generally falls.

High vs. low risk: a harmful dichotomy

The introduction of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) at the start of the century had an impressive impact, encouraging probation to separate out those who presented the highest risk of serious harm. The mantra that resources followed risk makes sense; so that the agencies collaboratively take concerted efforts to ‘control and monitor’ those whom we have good confidence could cause further harm and victims.

However, what has followed is a polarisation of political and media reporting of high or low risk of harm. Transforming Rehabilitation, the restructuring of probation services in 2014, crystallised this dichotomy, with oversimplified explanations dividing the caseload between high-risk offenders to the public sector National Probation Service and the ‘low-risk offenders’ to the outsourced Community Rehabilitation Companies. In truth over half of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of harm’. Risk of harm assessment is dynamic and can quickly change, hence the need for regular contact and engagement.

Since the further restructuring in 2021 back to one service, probation has struggled to find the balance between care and control. The direction of travel has been dominated by a mixture of juggling to achieve national consistency, offset rising prison population pressures, struggling to retain or train a sufficient skilled workforce.

We have also seen politicians who have been all too easily swayed by high-profile serious further offence investigations and the promise ‘that it will never happen again’, raising public expectations higher as to what can be managed and assured, when managing supervision of an individual in the community.

Few in the media have paused and asked what can be achieved by one probation practitioner managing a caseload in excess of fifty? How many times a month might the practitioner actually be able to meet with them to develop an influential relationship and remain on top of their needs, risks and changing circumstances? It is not like prison where you know where they are all the time. How much access is there in the community to access immediate accommodation, for instance? If someone is homeless, their preoccupation is with day-to day-survival, it is almost impossible for the probation practitioner to find space to address their ‘thinking behaviour and motivation to change’.

How can we support probation staff and those they supervise?

Probation staff need to be better supported by other services in the community to enable individuals on release from prison to access the immediate needs that bring about some basic stability.

A sizeable chunk of the caseload is assessed as ‘medium risk of serious harm’: people with complex lives that require both significant support for rehabilitation, as well as careful assessment and management of risk indicators such as domestic abuse and/or histories of previous violence. It is here that lies the knot for probation to untangle. What should be expectations and priorities for probation practitioners working with this group?

Good quality probation practice requires attention to both public protection, which involves good information sharing and the use of some controls and restrictions and good interventions and access to services to support rehabilitation. One without the other inevitably falls a long way short of effective practice.

The risk of exposure to criticism for a failure to attend to safeguarding measures now tends to overshadow attention to rehabilitation and resettlement. Low public confidence saps staff morale and motivation. This in turns contributes to turnover, poor recruitment and high vacancies. The imbalance is felt keenly by those being supervised. The supervisor – supervisee relationship becomes one of control rather than engagement and partnership. High caseloads, combined with excessive processes can result in a lack of time to develop effective, meaningful relationships that can support behaviour changes.

Moving forward it would be encouraging to see: 

• Greater public understanding of what realistically can be achieved through supervision in the community.

• Support for community ownership, collaboration and inclusion for those being released from prison, including quick access to services that provide stability.

• An improved balance between attending to risk of harm and needs to support rehabilitation.

Kelly Grehan 28th October 2024

Hopeful Messages

I know it's difficult, but despite everything, including the seemingly inexorable rise of the right, I try to keep hopeful on this site and in that vein I thought it worth highlighting the following:-

Or, instead of sleepwalking into that dystopian future, we could actually learn from what has worked before, and what still works in other countries. Probation is a brand, and a good one, but it needs realignment, investment, and political will. Prison doesn’t work as a default response. It never has and it never will, unless it’s reserved for the most serious offences with genuinely long sentences. Reduce the prison population and you immediately increase access to proper rehabilitation.

Probation could be resourced and legislatively supported to do what it’s supposed to do: rehabilitation, resettlement, and access to services. Housing, benefits, employment, mental health, substance misuse, these should be part of the package, not an afterthought or referral into the ether. Strengthen support and aftercare, allow unpaid work to lead to vocational qualifications, let probation hostels teach real life skills. There’s even a role for electronic monitoring, just not at £700 million a time.

Imagine five well-run probation hostels in the area of every probation office instead of all those intended new prisons, it would be cheaper and far more effective. As said above, abolish recalls for all but the genuinely dangerous, and instead increase support for others through voluntary supervision, including for people on remand.

And yes, pay probation officers more, give them proper social-work-grounded training again, and bring back family-focused practice instead of endless “leadership” courses or academic qualifications like theose Cambridge Criminology MAs that add little to the frontline.

The solutions aren’t difficult. They’ve been sitting there for decades. But as long as the ideas continue to come from the same managers who already failed us, a revolving door of ministers, and a handful of carefully selected academics, nothing will change. The frontline knows what works. It’s time someone listened.

Probation Officer

*********

It sounds good & is good in principle but how do we make it heard? How do we get someone to listen?

Forty years ago I qualified and for forty years I've been shouting & arguing & fighting against the tide of shit & the hierarchy of policymaking. I've had my head above the parapet forever. I've submitted evidence to parliament, to my MP, to the press. I've stood on picket lines, I've travelled hundreds of miles to Westminster to meet my MP (who failed to show for our appointment & has never yet apologised). I've submitted comments - positive & negative - to this blog. I've leaked documents elsewhere. I've been threatened directly & indirectly by names you would not believe.

As far as I've been able to work it out, here's my take on it:

1. Policymakers are a unique teflon-coated species who wield most of the power as they slither between the various layers of parliamentary lowlife.

2. Advisors feed on lobbyists & are very responsive to the sound of big money.

3. Politicians only listen to what their advisors tell them as they're too busy earning a meagre crust elsewhere in the City.

4. Those in 'the centre' (for probation & prisons = HMPPS) don't want to hear anything other than the words of the politicians they protect & serve & manipulate).

5. The peripatetic/regional leadership isn't interested in hearing anything but the edicts coming from 'the centre'.

6. The frontline are exhausted, tired of being crushed, abused, lied to, shouted at & bullied. The frontline usually get it from all corners of the compass: (a) from management, (b) from those they supervise, (c) from colleagues & (d) from the media. There used to be a small canopy under which they could shelter but Napo has folded & now cosplays 'good cop' to the HMPPS 'bad cop'.

It might yet need a farage government & the nuclear fallout of such a terrifying event to raze the status quo to ground zero so we can start again.

--oo00oo--

Talking of hope, I note it's nearly time for this years BBC Reith Lectures:-

The Reith Lectures Rutger Bregman - Moral Revolution Episode 1 of 4

Rutger Bregman's 2025 Reith Lectures, called "Moral Revolution", explore the moral decay and un-seriousness of today's elites, drawing historical parallels to past eras of corruption that preceded transformative movements especially the 19th Century campaign to abolish slavery. In his series, he argues that small, committed groups can spark moral revolutions, emphasizing the importance of perseverance and long-term vision.

Bregman advocates for a new "realist utopia" in the face of rapid technological change, promoting ideas like Universal Basic Income, fairer taxation and responsible tech regulation. Finally, he zooms out to reflect on humanity’s strange historical trajectory, warning of the existential risks posed by unchecked AI and urging privileged individuals to take on an active role in shaping a better future.

1. A Time of Monsters - 25th November 09:00 Radio 4

We're in a Doom Loop

So it turns out that 80% of all offending is re-offending according to a just published HoC Justice Committee report. In other shock news it seems our prisons are making the situation worse. If we reaffirm that the Probation Service is making matters even worse by simply re-calling to prison thousands of offenders each year, it's pretty clear we are in a 'doom loop' situation "a negative feedback loop where two or more factors worsen each other, leading to a spiraling crisis." 

At what point does a government grasp the nettle and admit the whole UK system is failing, in stark contrast to our European neighbours, and face the obvious reality that building more prisons and tagging everyone is just going to make the problem even bigger? 

‘Dire’ prison conditions putting rehabilitation and reoffending reduction ‘at risk’, Justice Committee warns

Prison overcrowding, staffing shortages and deteriorating infrastructure is having a ‘profound impact on the ability of prisons to deliver rehabilitation’, a new report published today (November 14) by the Justice Committee has said.

Read the report
Read the report (PDF)
Rehabilitation and Reoffending
Justice Committee

MPs on the cross-party committee called on the Government to set out how it will ensure that rehabilitation is not compromised or deprioritised, alongside how it intends to manage demand and supply. These ‘failures risk undermining the very purpose of imprisonment, to reduce reoffending’, the Committee warned.

80% of all offending in England and Wales is reoffending with ‘growing concerns about persistently high’ rates, the report cautioned, adding it is unacceptable that 50 per cent of prisoners are not involved in prison education or work, despite the high level of need across the adult estate.

Conditions
Prisons are in a ‘state of disrepair’, the report concluded, with the Committee stating it was shocked by the dire living conditions that many prisoners are living in and deeply concerning to hear that prisons may be in violation of human rights legislation. Dilapidated buildings and broken infrastructure limit access to rehabilitative spaces and contribute to poor mental health.

Despite recent capital investment, it remains unclear how the Government intends to address the scale of the £1.8 billion maintenance backlog, the report said. It called on the Government to provide a clear breakdown of how funding will be used to address this backlog, and to ensure that future investment is targeted at improving prison conditions with access to rehabilitative activities in mind.

Time out of cell
The report found a ‘widespread failure’ to meet the statutory minimum for time out of cell. Many prisoners are locked up for 22 hours or more each day, with limited access to fresh air, showers, or rehabilitative activities.

This lack of time out of cell undermines efforts to reduce reoffending and contributes to poor mental health and disengagement, it added. Purposeful activity, including education, work, and offending behaviour programmes, is central to rehabilitation, yet it is inconsistently delivered and often deprioritised – notably for IPP prisoners.

MPs called for a renewed focus on ensuring all prisoners have access to meaningful activity, and for time out of cell to be formalised, standardised, and its data to be published going forward.

HMPPS must closely monitor prisons that are failing to meet the statutory minimum and provide urgent support to enable compliance, the Committee added.

Staffing
Staffing levels, high turnover, poor recruitment processes, and limited professional development have contributed to a culture that hinders rehabilitation, the report said.

The Committee recommended prison staff should receive training at least annually, with more frequent support as they progress through their careers. Governors lack the autonomy to lead effectively, and the current staffing model is unsustainable, MPs warned.
Education

The Committee said it was ‘alarmed’ by reports of real-term cuts to prison education budgets of up to 50 per cent and urged the Government to clarify the rationale of any planned budget reductions.

It must set out how it plans to ensure that all prisons retain the funding necessary to deliver core education provision. The report concluded prison education is underfunded as is and poorly delivered, adding participation rates are low and neurodivergent prisoners are not adequately supported.

75 per cent of prisons inspected by Ofsted in 2024/25 were rated 'inadequate' or 'showing no improvement'. The Government, MPs said, must publish a clear plan to improve both participation and quality in prison education.

This should include steps to address poor Ofsted outcomes, ensure that all prisoners, including those on remand, have access to meaningful education, and improve data collection on attendance and provision across the estate.

Education on the youth estate is also in a state of decline, the report concluded. Children in Youth Offending Institutions are entitled to 15 hours of education per week, yet the Committee heard that this minimum is routinely not met.

The report called on the MoJ to set out how it will address the operational barriers to education delivery, including staffing, behaviour management, and keep apart arrangements and ensure that education is prioritised as a core component of the youth custody regime.
Remand prisoners

Despite comprising 20 per cent of the prison population, the highest level in at least 50 years, remand prisoners often spend extended periods in custody, only to be released directly from court following a conviction without any support or intervention.

This raises serious concerns about how the Government expects these individuals to avoid reoffending. Remand prisoners should have access to all parts of the regime, should they choose to participate, MPs recommended.

Contracting
Current contracting and the procurement system within HMPPS is inefficient, the report warned. Poorly designed and inflexible contracts are limiting the ability of voluntary and specialist providers to deliver effective rehabilitation services.

The system is not fit for purpose and risks undermining both prison management and rehabilitative outcomes. MPs called on the Government to provide the Committee with a clear and comprehensive overview of how HMPPS is managing its current contracts, including steps being taken to simplify procurement processes and improve contract flexibility.

Governors should receive training on procurement and contracting, the Committee added.

Well-being
Health and wellbeing services are failing to meet the needs of prisoners, the report said, adding mental health support is inconsistent, and operational pressures prevent timely access to care.

Women in prison face acute and complex health needs, yet the system is not providing even basic support. The Committee called on the Government to outline a clear plan for how it will meet the health and wellbeing needs of the women currently in its care.

Chair comment
Chair of the Justice Committee and Labour MP Andy Slaughter MP said:

“Prison rehabilitation and efforts to break the cycle of reoffending aren’t working and cannot succeed in a system which is facing critical pressures on so many fronts.

“The Committee’s report reveals an overcrowded, short staffed, crumbling prison estate where the long-term focus on rehabilitation is often lost in an over-stretched environment which is grappling day to day to function.

“Capacity issues are leading to prisoners languishing for 22 hours a day in cells as the remand population grows and reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. It cannot be right that those that do choose to engage in rehabilitative activities are worse off due to the prisons’ failure, and their limited access to time out of cell is reduced to choosing between a shower, a hot meal or fresh air.

The current conditions in youth custody settings are deplorable, and it is shameful that access to education for children has deteriorated as part of this wider decline.

“Ministers must act fast to fix the basics and give greater attention to purposeful rehabilitation programmes across jails. Continuing with a cyclical system in crisis mode which offers little real opportunity to turn around prisoners’ lives is a false economy.”

Fair and Sustainable to Blame?

We all know there's a crisis in the prison system and I was struck by the following contribution posted yesterday:- 

Problems in staffing prisons go back many years and include the introduction of a two tier system for pay, terms and conditions known as ‘Fair and Sustainable.’ (FAST). Essentially, you could undergo career progression if you agreed to a new contract of employment which offered lesser terms and conditions. 

The old hands quite rightly refused because of the impact upon pensions and as a consequence, were not allowed to apply for permanent promotion, although many were given ‘temporary,’ or ‘acting,’ positions which they kept for years.

What happened next was that young or inexperienced officers, denied pay progression because of austerity, applied for promotion to grades they wouldn’t normally be qualified for, and in the absence of any competition, they got the job.

The problems on the wings became enormous and over time, the longer serving members of staff left or retired. This is a part explanation for the exodus, but of course, as with probation, the problems are multi-fold and the solutions complex.

The most obvious solution in my mind would be, don’t try to screw your staff and introduce change by negotiation, consultation, and listening. Who knows, the idea might rub off on other areas of the CJS.

Of course the man in charge was hugely optimistic in 2012:- 

Fair and sustainable 

Revision to proposals for working structures in HM Prison Service following the consultation with trade unions

Foreword 

This document sets out a revised set of plans following consultation with our trades unions, staff associations and our broader engagement with staff. Since we launched Fair and sustainable in November 2011, we have met with hundreds of staff and received feedback and questions from hundreds more. This process of consultation and listening has been essential in helping us identify gaps and issues in our plans which we have sought to address where possible. 

The feedback that you and your union representatives have provided collectively has helped us improve our thinking and clarify our plans. As a result we have made a number of amendments that we believe will enhance the ambitions of these plans to be both sustainable for the future and particularly make our plans even fairer for current staff. 

These amendments are set out in the beginning of this document but include: the retention of the non-consolidated payments for Staff Personal Development Record (SPDR) performance for eligible staff remaining on current terms and conditions; an acknowledgement of the impact of the changes to local pay allowances, with the provision of a compensation package on promotion within affected sites; and moving the transition timetable to allow DPSMs to complete their Job Similation Assessment Centre (JSAC) before selection to roles takes place.

I hope that you are now clear that the plans for new terms and conditions set out in Fair and sustainable only relate to pay arrangements – that is salary, hours, pay point progression allowances, and payments. Unless you opt-in to the new terms and conditions set out in this document, Fair and sustainable makes no changes to your current pay. Nor does Fair and sustainable impact on any other parts of terms and conditions such as leave entitlement, sickness or pensions.

In an environment of increased competition and diverse market for the provision of offender services these plans remain absolutely vital for the ongoing competitiveness of HM Prison Service. The future presents a clear challenge for the Service, and these plans represent the Service’s intelligent and necessary response. 

It is this fact that has driven a very productive relationship with all trades unions to deliver their support for these plans which, for the POA, was validated by a ballot of their members who voted overwhelmingly to endorse Fair and sustainable. In introducing these changes we have been clear that our aim is to avoid compulsary redundancies as far as possible. The transitional measures set out in this document which we have agreed with trade unions, mean that we are now in a good position to do that. 

Preparations are now underway to introduce these plans in establishments. New structures will be in place for April 2013, when staff will all be working in their new roles, to new job descriptions which have all been assessed by the new job evaluation system (JES). 

To get there we have a clear and structured process to guide all prisons through the transition as smoothly as possible. However, I do not under-estimate the impact that this will have on all of you, and the Service in general. This is not just about structural change but, much more importantly, about moving to a new, and better, way of working. To do this we will need to manage this change in a way that is fair and decent to our staff and protects the spirit, pride and strong delivery that defines HM Prison Service. I am determined that we will achieve this.

Michael Spurr

Chief Executive Officer

Symptoms of a Failing System

Just caught up with this from the Institute for Government:-

The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system

The problems in criminal justice run far deeper than one high-profile error. The dramatic rise in prisoners released in error is just one aspect of a collapsing criminal justice system, argues Cassia Rowland

Prisons are rarely at the top of the political news cycle – and when they are, it’s never good news. The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu, the former asylum seeker whose charge and conviction for sexual assault triggered violent unrest in Essex this summer, was the last thing the government needed in a week already full of negative headlines. But the dire state of prisons means it was just a matter of time until something like this happened.

Prisons are failing at their most basic requirements

In this year’s Public Services Performance Tracker we highlight just how bad things are in prisons. Prisons are often dangerous and overrun with drugs. A quarter of prisoners are kept in cells that do not meet fire safety standards1 and rates of violence are skyrocketing. There were more than 30,000 assaults in 2024 – equating to one incident for every three prisoners. And more than one in ten of those are serious, including those resulting in concussions, burns and broken bones.

Conditions are inhumane. Prisoners struggle to get toilet paper for their cells or sometimes have to choose between a hot meal and a shower. Two-thirds of prisoners are locked in their cells for at least 18 hours a day, with little access to education or employment. In this context, it is little wonder that prison releases have also been affected. The number of releases ‘in error’ has jumped dramatically, rising to 262 in 2024/25: more than double the previous year and almost four and half times what it was ten years before.

Staff inexperience, policy changes and the ongoing capacity crisis are all contributing to these failures

The blame for mistaken releases can partly be laid on staff inexperience. More than half of prison officers in March 2025 had been in the job less than five years, compared to just 22% in March 2010. A quarter had less than two years’ experience.4 Inexperienced officers may be more likely to make mistakes and are less likely to have the confidence to speak up if it seems like something’s not right.

Calculating a prisoner’s release date has also become much more complicated. Until 2020, almost all prisoners serving a fixed length sentence were released halfway through their sentence, serving the rest under probation supervision in the community.

Now, some offenders are released automatically after 40% of their sentence, some after 50%, some after 66%; others simply become eligible to apply to be released after half or two thirds of their sentence. The operational guidance for calculating when a prisoner should be released is 144 pages long – and doesn’t even cover the emergency early release measures used over the last two years.

But the biggest reason for the increase is the capacity crisis and the emergency release measures governments have been forced to adopt to manage it. Since the 2000s, successive governments, of all stripes, have failed to build enough prison places to meet growing demand while the Ministry of Justice suffered steep cuts during the 2010s, including both day-to-day spending and prison maintenance and expansion.

Under the Sunak government, prisons took an ad hoc approach to early releases, letting prisoners out days or weeks early at very short notice to free up space as they needed it. Labour’s scheme to release most prisoners after 40% of their sentence has been fairer and more predictable, but has still made it more complicated to figure out when prisoners should be released. The churn in the prison population has also risen sharply, with more people coming in and out of prison and lots more people being recalled to prison after release. This again makes it more difficult keeping track of who is coming into prison and when they need to be released.

The government needs to keep focusing on fixing the systemic problems

We don’t know exactly what went wrong in this specific instance, and it was a particularly serious failing given the seriousness of the offences and because Kebatu should have been deported, rather than simply being released a few days or weeks early. The justice secretary, David Lammy, is right to want to know precisely how this happened.

Given the increasing complexity of calculating prisoners’ release dates, introducing additional checks is probably sensible – depending on what exactly they are. Having all ‘high profile’ releases reviewed by the Ministry of Justice, as has been suggested, seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but there may be other safeguards that can be introduced without creating unnecessary admin.

The most important task, however, is getting the prison system back on its feet. That means reducing pressure on prison spaces. The Sentencing Bill, currently making its way through parliament, will help with that, but capacity will remain on a knife edge until at least late 2027. Crucially, making a success of the reforms requires substantial investment in community sentences and rehabilitation, to provide courts with an effective alternative to prison and keep people from bouncing in and out of custody. Without that, the prison system will remain under acute pressure and further errors like this one will be more and more likely.

Cassia Rowland

Related content The crisis in prisons

More Problems with Sentencing Bill

I note the Howard League has raised another problem with the government's Sentencing Bill:-

Earned regression? Howard League outlines concern about government’s prison reforms

The government’s flagship proposal to address prison overcrowding risks ending in failure because it relies on a flawed and unfair punishment process that could lead to people being released without supervision or support, a briefing published by the Howard League for Penal Reform warns today (Tuesday 4 November).

Ministers have set out plans to tackle the prisons crisis in a Sentencing Bill, which is being scrutinised in Parliament. The draft legislation includes a proposal to introduce an ‘earned progression’ model that would enable some people to be released from prison one-third of the way through their sentences.

But the Howard League briefing, Earned regression?, explains how the proposal, which was recommended by an Independent Sentencing Review led by former Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, may result in further overcrowding and injustice in the prison system because of the way the government has decided to implement it.

The problem lies in a decision by ministers to take a flawed existing internal punishment process in prisons – through which some people can be given additional days of imprisonment – and make it the cornerstone of the new policy. The proposed arrangements would double the number of additional days that people can receive for breaches of prison rules, putting more pressure on capacity, and leave open the possibility that some are released from custody without supervision.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

“The prison system is on the brink. Ministers commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review and introduced proposed new legislation in Parliament because they understood that change was needed to address the capacity crisis.

“But in proposing greater use of additional days of imprisonment, they risk making the problems even worse. This blunt instrument only adds to the injustice and distress that exists within the prison system, and it contributes directly to the chronic overcrowding that prevents people receiving the help they need to move on from crime.

“Most worryingly, this ill-considered proposal opens the possibility that people who have demonstrated particularly challenging behaviour in prison will be released into the community without any support or supervision, at a risk to public safety.

“Given other jurisdictions such as Scotland do not use additional days of imprisonment at all, the Howard League remains of the view that they are counter-productive and should be abolished. But if ministers are set on making them the cornerstone of their new earned progression model, then at the very least the proposal to double the amount of additional days that can be awarded per incident, with no upper ceiling on how many days can be handed out, should be dropped.

“There is also an opportunity to tackle longstanding concerns about procedural fairness in the adjudications process.”

Additional days of imprisonment are a form of punishment awarded through prison disciplinary procedures. If someone serving a determinate sentence is found to have breached a prison rule, they can have days added to their time in custody by an external adjudicator, usually a district judge. Additional days are not treated in the same way as sentences handed down by the criminal courts, which have release part of the way through and the remainder of the sentence on licence; people serve the entire period of additional days in prison.

Currently, the maximum number of additional days that can be imposed on someone for one incident is 42; the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has indicated that it intends to double this to 84. The draft legislation also suggests that there will be no cap on the total number that can be awarded to someone on the earned progression model – in spite of a recommendation from the Independent Sentencing Review that there should be a halfway point limit on how long someone can be kept in custody on additional days.

The Howard League briefing explains how the planned changes raise significant public safety concerns. The lack of an upper limit would make it possible for people in prison to receive so many additional days that they reach the end of their sentence and get released into the community without any form of supervision from probation. Similarly, doubling the number of additional days that can be awarded would mean people get to their sentence end date twice as fast.

The briefing also reveals how the additional days process is unfair and ineffective in maintaining good order and discipline. As additional days can only be awarded to people on determinate sentences (not those serving indeterminate sentences, civil orders and Detention and Training Orders, nor people on remand), they fuel a sense of injustice and unequal treatment behind bars.

Resentment is likely to rise even higher under the government’s proposed changes, as it appears that the harsher additional days structure will apply even to people who are excluded from the earned progression model, including more than 9,000 people on extended determinate sentences and children. The briefing states that this is unfair and a “bizarre” approach to take when the prison capacity crisis is so acute.

MoJ figures show that the number of additional days awarded rose by 56% to 108,366 last year – totalling almost 297 years of imprisonment. The briefing raises concern that this number will soar if additional days become the default mechanism for enforcing the earned progression model in prisons.

Running Hot and Under Strain

Given the continuing news coming out regarding wrongful prison releases, it's probably a good idea to publish the following Press Release from the Prison Governors Association:-

PRISON GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION – RELEASES IN ERROR

Releases in Error (RiEs) are neither rare nor hidden 

As with our statement regarding HMP Chelmsford on 27 October 2025, today’s message is not about the details of this individual case. It is a renewed call to focus attention on the wider and worsening conditions across our prison estate. We will not be making comments on the specifics in this case, or that at Chelmsford. 

Releases in Errors are openly reported by the Government in the HMPPS Annual Digest — the most recent edition is available here HMPPS Annual Digest 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. They are not new; they have occurred under every government’s watch and have occurred under every iteration of HMPPS. 

Most practitioners, informed commentators, and impartial experts recognise this. They understand the inherent complexity of the case management process, a system with multiple points of failure, limited automation, and a heavy reliance on human intervention. These processes span multiple parts of the criminal justice system, not just within prisons. The current case management model is both complex and under-resourced. These conditions make errors not just possible, but predictable. 

The prison system, like the wider criminal justice system, is under unprecedented and sustained pressure. This is not pressure felt in isolation — prisons are interconnected. While some establishments may be coping better than others, the strain is systemic. Decisions made to stabilise one prison — such as reducing capacity or increasing staffing — often have unintended, negative consequences elsewhere. Today, it feels as though every move to ease pressure in one part of the system simply shifts the burden to another. Most interventions over recent years to manage capacity has seen increase pressure on case management systems. 

Despite a recent reduction in the overall prison population, overcrowding remains acute. Around 10,000 people are still held in overcrowded conditions. Crucially, the available space is not in reception prisons like Chelmsford or Wandsworth, which are among the most overcrowded and experience the highest levels of prisoner movement. According to the Howard League for Penal Reform, HMP Wandsworth is operating at 167% of its safe capacity, Chelmsford is at 133% of its safe capacity. The Howard League | Prisons 

Between January and March 2025, 13,296 people were released from prison sentences. In the same period, there were 23,154 prisoner transfers — excluding court movements. By a crude measure, it would be likely to see in one year over 52,000 sentenced people released from prison and 92,000 transferred between prisons. 

These figures reflect a system running hot, and under constant strain. Offender management statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK

The scale of Releases in Error (RiEs) is deeply concerning. In the last full reporting year, 262 prisoners were released in error, averaging around 65 incidents per quarter. These errors include individuals released either too early or too late from their sentence, both scenarios carry serious consequences and undermine public confidence. HMPPS Annual Digest 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK 

Currently, around 0.5% of prisoners are not released on the correct date. While that may appear to be a small percentage, in a system managing tens of thousands of releases and transfers each quarter, it does represent a significant operational failure. The conditions required to reduce this figure to zero simply do not exist.

Achieving a zero-error outcome would demand substantial investment in staff training, modern IT infrastructure, and recruitment, all within a system already stretched by competing priorities. Successive governments have accepted this level of risk for decades. In that context, it feels disingenuous to see politicians attempt to extract political gain from a prison system in crisis.

Recent safety in custody statistics also lay bare the complexity and dangers within our prison system. Prisons are high-risk environments, not only for those who live in them, but for the staff who work tirelessly within them. Much must change before these institutions can truly become places of reform. The challenges we face in custody are not isolated. They are symptoms of deeper, systemic issues across society. It is unrealistic to expect a struggling, violent prison system to single-handedly reduce reoffending. 

Levels of extreme violence in prisons are rising — including incidents of homicide. Violence directed towards staff is increasing, and rates of self-harm among people in custody continue to climb. These are not isolated trends; they reflect a system under immense strain. 

There is no silver bullet to improve safety outcomes. What works in one prison can produce adverse effects in another. Austerity introduced a benchmarked prison system that levelled down resources and stripped away individualised regimes. This has left many establishments without the flexibility they need to respond to local challenges. 

We continue to advocate for greater autonomy and operational freedom for our members — provided they are properly funded to do so. Empowering local leadership is essential to restoring safety, stability, and dignity across the prison estate.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-june2025/safety-in-custody-statistics-england-and-wales-deaths-in-prison-custody-toseptember-2025-assaults-and-self-harm-to-june-2025 

Our members and colleagues across HMPPS continue to do their utmost to keep the prison system afloat. At times, it feels like this is against all odds and despite the limited contribution from successive governments to properly enable and resource the service the public rightly expects. 

Our commitment remains clear: we will work with any political party or government willing to find meaningful solutions to improve conditions in our prisons. We all have a vested interest in making this system safer, fairer, and more effective. But while political parties showboat and grandstand, the real risk to the public is not being effectively managed — despite the relentless efforts of those working within HMPPS.

A Shot Across the Bows

Thanks go to regular 'Getafix contributor for pointing us in the direction of the following shot across the bows from Their Lordships:- 

Probation Service being set up to fail with tagging expansion, says Lords committee

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee today publishes a letter to the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and the Minister for Border Security and Asylum. In the letter, the Committee sets out its concerns about the woefully inadequate resources promised by the Government, and the absence of a new Electronic Monitoring (EM) strategy.The Committee also believes additional issues must be addressed before EM achieves its potential.

• Outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's inquiry into the use of Electronic Monitoring (EM): policy letter dated 5 November 2025 from the Chair to the Home Office and Ministry of Justice
• Inquiry: Investigation into electronic monitoring
• Justice and Home Affairs Committe

The letter

Electronic Monitoring (EM, commonly called tagging) is likely to double once the Sentencing Bill becomes law. This will require a significant increase in funding for the Probation Service, not least for additional staff and training.

It also requires a new EM strategy with a clearly defined purpose for how the Government believes EM should be used. Without such a strategy and additional funding, the probation service is being set up to fail, according to the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

In its letter, the Committee finds:

• Poor communication to the Judiciary and the public by the Government, about the purpose and benefits of EM
• Insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of much of the use of EM, with evidence produced by the Government too often focusing on pilot studies and short-term reviews showing little to no evidence of quantifiable success
• Potential inability of current private contractors to handle the increase in those subject to EM
• Ethical concerns around the use of EM in some contexts, particularly its use in immigration bail
• Major concerns about the underwhelming, and at times dire, performance of the private sector providing EM services.
• Failure to fully grasp the opportunities provided by new technologies.

Chair's comments

Lord Foster of Bath, Chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee said:

“The Probation Service needs more funding, and many more well-trained staff if there is to be a successful EM expansion. Without this, the Probation Service is being set up to fail.

“It is startling that the Government is promoting the biggest expansion of EM in a generation at a time of great technological advancement yet does not see fit to accompany this with a new strategy.

“There is also a new presumption that all prison leavers will be subject to EM on their release from custody. This blanket approach to tagging, regardless of crime and circumstances, diminishes the role of effective, targeted probation interventions, and risks creating an unethical system that is overly punitive and disproportionate.

“Alongside a major boost in funding and training, and a reassessment of procurement and contract management, a new EM strategy is crucial. At a time when the use of EM is changing, with numbers almost doubling and the intention to tag most prison leavers ‘at source’, the Government must reassess its approach to EM. The rise of new technologies, including non-fitted devices and AI, further highlight the importance of a new strategy, one which clearly defines the purpose of EM to both the judiciary and the public.

“We look forward to the Government’s response to the observations and recommendations in this letter.”