Burnham Causes Chaos

It didn't take long did it for the new Prime Minister to plunge prison and probation into chaos. This from the Guardian:-

Prisoner early release scheme paused by Andy Burnham may still go ahead

Probation union and crime victims had raised doubts over plan to free 6,000 offenders across England and Wales

An early release scheme for thousands of prisoners paused by Andy Burnham after an outcry from victims could still take place this autumn, despite warnings by probation officers of potential chaos.

The prime minister ordered an urgent review into the proposed early release of about 6,000 prisoners, due to begin in September with an initial group of about 700, saying he wanted to “minimise risk to the public” and would not hesitate to make changes.

But with government officials accepting that the prison system remains near capacity, and no appetite to use alternatives such as police cells beyond emergencies, it is unclear what options exist beyond continuing with the plan, even in a different form.

Victims groups had objected to the proposal for 6,000 people to be freed early under the new Sentencing Act, with Debbie Adlam, the mother of the police officer Andrew Harper, saying the proposed inclusion of two of her son’s killers – Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers – was “another letdown” for their family.

In the latest of a flurry of policy announcements since he took over in No 10 on Monday, Burnham said: “I am working closely with the new justice secretary and have instructed my team to put a pause on the changes that were due to start in September.

“No prisoners will be let out under this policy until we have conducted an urgent review and done everything we can to minimise risk to the public. Where changes are needed, we will not hesitate to make them.”

With officials warning that without the scheme, prisons in England and Wales will run out of capacity by November, the most likely outcome appears to be a tweak to the early release system, with some offenders held back.

Officials have refused to say if the plan could be amended to block early release for people convicted of offences against emergency workers, such as Harper’s killers, or against women and girls.

Alex Norris, the new justice secretary, told reporters on Thursday the government needed “time to get it right”. He said: “We’ve put an important pause on this policy. It gives us a little bit of time to look at this, to make sure we do our best by you.”

Probation officers have warned that a “sense of chaos” had descended across the Prison Service, with staff unable to make preparations for the mass release. Tania Bassett, Napo’s national officer, said that after the trade union asked the Prisons Service if staff should continue with preparations for the early release scheme, it was now informing them it has been paused.

She said: “Napo’s concern is this will mean probation staff stop doing pre-release work. Whatever the prime minister’s final decision is, he has created a delay as well as confusion amongst the staff tasked with dealing with this.

“He needs to be more decisive about critical public protection issues and we urge him to treat this situation with the upmost urgency.”

According to the union, preparations for release require probation staff to carry out extensive work that usually takes at least six to eight weeks.

This includes reviewing risk assessments, making referrals for accommodation, carrying out home visits, coordinating with victim liaison officers and domestic abuse support officers and developing multi-agency safeguarding plans.

It can also take several weeks to ensure that tagging measures are in place before an offender is placed in accommodation. Unless probation staff received “imminent, concrete direction” about who will be considered, established release plans could collapse, a union official said.

The review has caused chaos in prisons, where managers are responsible for calculating release dates over several weeks from 2 September.

The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced an “earned progression model” that replaces automatic halfway release for prisoners serving standard determinate sentences in England and Wales with a tiered, behaviour-based system.

It will allow most prisoners to be released after serving a third of their sentence behind bars rather than 50%, with the rest of their sentence served under strict supervision in the community with the help of electronic tagging.

Prisoners serving time for sexual or violent offences where the automatic release stage is set at two-thirds will become eligible for release at the halfway point, provided they have not committed serious breaches of prison rules.

This applies to Bowers and Cole, two of Harper’s killers who were jailed for 13 years in 2020 for manslaughter. Burnham confirmed that Henry Long, the main perpetrator, “will not be subject to any early release” under the scheme.

After news of the pause emerged, Debbie Adlam told ITV News that this was “not enough”. She said: “It’s a good start, and it really is a good basis to begin working on some sensible alternatives and looking at options for going forward, because there’s so many people this affects, it’s not just us.”

Confidence Broken

I guess I should be paying more attention, but I seem to think we never covered this Guardian article from 19th June and I notice Napo are kicking up a bit of a row, no doubt with the fast-approaching AGM in mind. 

Excessive probation workloads put public at risk in England and Wales, union warns

Exclusive: Napo declares no confidence in probation service managers and threatens industrial action

The public is “at direct risk” from unsupervised ex-offenders because probation officers in England and Wales are being asked to cope with excessive workloads, a union has said.

As ministers prepare to release and monitor tens of thousands more prisoners this autumn, Napo’s executive has declared for the first time that it has no confidence in managers at the probation service.

In a worrying development for the government, the union is threatening to launch industrial action in three months’ time unless members receive increased support and pay.

The motion comes at a crucial time for the government’s plans to relieve pressure on the criminal justice system. From September, ministers will embark on the biggest expansion of tagging in British history so that up to 40,000 former offenders will be monitored by tags and overseen by probation officers – a 40% increase from the 28,000 currently on tags.

Last year, an official watchdog warned that the probation service had too few staff with too little experience and training, which it said left members of the public at risk. The public accounts committee found that longstanding staff shortages had left probation staff dealing with “excessive and unmanageable workloads”, with officers working at 126% of capacity for several years in some areas.

Tania Bassett, a Napo national official, said probation officers were unable to cope with the growing number of ex-offenders they were being asked to supervise, and many more people were ending up on the street.

“Excessive workloads and staff burnout poses a direct risk to the public with staff being unable to effectively manage the risk of their clients in the community,” she said. “Added to this is the shortage of accommodation, which will result in more people being homeless and therefore more likely to reoffend.”

Managers were trying to get rid of a tool that measures the workload each probation officer is being asked to cope with, a move that would hide the magnitude of the tasks they were being asked to perform, Bassett said.

“The loss of a workload measurement tool will leave staff, including managers, unable to see their workloads and therefore unable to evidence that they are overworked,” she said.

The Prison Service met only 26% of its targets for timeliness of appointments and delivery of services in 2024-25, down from 50% in 2022, according to the National Audit Office. The Ministry of Justice said that between 2023 and 2025, 31% of target probation appointments did not take place.

The MoJ said earlier this year that it would recruit 1,300 extra probation officers in the next year as part of a £700m investment by 2029, which included £100m for the tagging expansion by the end of this parliament. The department said “proximity monitoring technology” for domestic abusers and stalkers would be tested in a £5m pilot.

The union’s executive has voted for a motion that says a failure to address persistently high vacancy and staff sickness rates and removing a tool that measures workloads means that “the current position is untenable and cannot continue”.

It says: “[HM Prison and Probation Service’s] leadership has demonstrably failed in its duty of care to the workforce of the Probation Service, and this represents a reckless disregard for our welfare and professional integrity as well as the safety of our communities.”

James Timpson, the prisons minister, told MPs last week that the probation service was under severe pressure after disclosing that staff were each managing an average of 32 ex-offenders.

“It’s running too hot … we inherited a system that was broken, and we’re putting it all back together again. It’s going to take time,” he told the justice select committee.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We remain committed to working closely with trade unions to ensure our staff continue to get the support they need to cut crime and protect the public. We have full confidence in Probation Service leadership to deliver the necessary changes and improvements.”

--oo00oo--

Confidence Broken in HMPPS to deliver 

Napo is pressing for urgent national action to tackle the workload crisis before it pushes probation staff any further to the brink. We are calling for immediate workload protections, stronger safety measures, a fair and jointly owned workload measurement tool, protected learning time, and meaningful partnership with the trade unions. These are practical solutions that put staff wellbeing, public protection and professional standards first. 

Clueless and Uncaring HMPPS

NAPO MAG 29/05/2026

Napo Opposes HMPPS Plans to Remove Access to the Workload Measurement Tool

Napo has strongly opposed HMPPS plans to withdraw practitioner access to the Workload Measurement Tool, warning the move undermines staff safety, workload management and employer accountability. This week HMPPS have advised staff of its plans to withdraw practitioner access to the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), in advance of its removal in several months.

Napo has not agreed to these changes

We have been made aware of several untrue and incorrect statements having been made by regional senior managers to the effect that Napo, and other trade unions, have agreed to this. We have not and will not agree to these plans. It is now for any individual who has made these statements – whether out of ignorance or malice – to urgently account to staff why they have done so, retract their comments and apologise to their colleagues.

In earlier discussions that took place with the trade unions, Napo representatives have clearly and repeatedly explained to HMPPS figures the hugely negative impact their plans would have on the staff involved, and more widely in the workforce.

During these exchanges HMPPS have admitted for the first time that for a significant period the WMT underestimates the workload of the staff involved. They have failed to publicly acknowledge this in their communications on the future of the WMT, making only vague, and frankly misleading, comments on its accuracy.

These plans completely disregard previous agreements made between the employer and the trade unions on staff safety and care. HMPPS appear clueless as to how they now intend to meet their legal duty of care to monitor and manage individual workloads, for ‘sentence management’ staff and all other employees. They cannot adequately explain how they plan to provide workload reductions for staff requiring these, for instance as reasonable adjustments or as facility time for trade union representatives.

Despite claiming to value the importance of staff and their wellbeing, HMPPS have completely failed to ensure that an adequate mechanism to monitor and manage the workload of staff. HMPPS claim to have been aware that the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) under-reports on the workload of staff but has not communicated that to its employees. They tell us that they have known that this will become worse due to changes planned under the employer’s heavily criticised and under-delivering Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) programme have not yet made sufficient plans to have a replacement in place.

Napo have, for months, been calling on HMPPS to agree to the joint ownership of the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), including on any future version of this tool, and for its application to as many other workers outside of ‘sentence management’ as possible at the earliest opportunity.

We believe this is the only way for staff to have any confidence on this issue, given HMPPS’s consistent inability to adequately protect us in this regard, and be open and honest with us. Napo will now include demands for positive change, and a completely different approach by the employer, in relation to workload measurement and management.

We will be responding to a letter sent by the employer yesterday after they had decided to enact these changes, regarding industrial action in response to their failure to resolve our longstanding workloads dispute.

Napo HQ

New Pay Offer

I note there's a new pay offer:-

New Probation Pay offer to go before members 

After overwhelming rejection of a 4% offer, probation unions have secured a revised 6% pay proposal alongside commitments on workload reform and future pay negotiations. Napo members will now decide whether to accept the deal or consider next steps. 

Following the outcome of the indicative ballots organised by Napo UNISON and GMB on the 2025-2026 pay offer, the Unions were invited to meet with Lord Timpson and HMPPS CEO James McEwen on Monday 9th March.

Since then, extensive negotiations with senior officials have taken place and have resulted in an improved but conditional offer of a 6% increase to pay and allowances, the continuation of talks on the future of the Probation Service and a joint review of future arrangements for pay, in particular the Competency Based Framework (CBF). Your Probation Negotiating Committee have been meeting regularly to receive reports from your Negotiators.

The latter stages of this process has been facilitated by the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Timpson and the TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak.

Position of the Probation trade unions

The Joint Statement sets out the factual position that has been arrived at via these negotiations. We have been advised by our sister unions UNISON and GMB that they will be recommending acceptance of the offer.

Napo will now be presenting the offer to our members following confirmation from the parties that this is the best position that can be achieved through negotiation following HMPPS’s rejection of a counteroffer from Napo for an 8% increase, as requested by your Probation Negotiating Committee (PNC), on the basis that no further money was available from the Government.

The pay offer is accompanied by conditions, specifically; a commitment to workload reform and commitment to a negotiated pay review process

It is now for Napo members to decide on the merits of the offer. We will present a factual account of how we have arrived at this position and allow our members the opportunity to vote for it.

Commentary

The improved headline offer of 6% has come because of the tremendous response from our members who roundly rejected the previous 4% offer by a huge 89% majority in a ballot result that was unprecedented in Napo’s recent history. As stated above, Napo did our best to seek further improvements but this approach was rejected on the basis of the current economic situation and the fact that the new offer is among the very highest within the civil service in this pay year which, unlike a current offer in another government department does not come with a requirement to agree material changes to contractual terms and conditions.

This is the best offer available through negotiation. If members decide that the offer is unacceptable then, as has been made clear throughout the pay campaign, it would require a sustained campaign of industrial action to try and convince the government to return to negotiations where any outcome would be uncertain. In making their decision on the likelihood of such a campaign succeeding, members will want to take into account the Government’s decision to reject our counter-offer, the limited impact of other such campaigns elsewhere in the public sector, as well as their own financial situation.

If members vote to accept the offer of 6%, the employer has indicated that the pay uplift would be paid in May 2026 and backdated to April 2025.

Members are invited to read the various documentation attached in advance of balloting arrangements and consultative meetings for Napo members. Details of which will follow at the earliest opportunity.

The final decision to accept this offer rests with Napo members.

--oo00oo--

Editors note - the blog remains on Care and Maintenance but this is a significant event and if the comment thread gets too long things will get unmanageable.

Insulting Pay Offer

This from Napo yesterday:-

Probation Pay Offer for 2025-2026 finally received - Napo recommend rejection

Over a year has passed since the Probation trade unions submitted a joint pay claim for 2025-2026, and despite meetings with Government Ministers who failed to deliver on their promise to produce a pay offer by Christmas and after several subsequent complaints, pay negotiations between senior Probation management and the unions resumed last week after a totally inexcusable delay.

Following the conclusion of these, a formal pay offer was received which was immediately considered by your Probation Negotiating Committee (PNC). Napo is a member led union and the role of the PNC as a nationally elected body is to arrive at a recommendation based on the merits of the employers offer. Having done so, the PNC unanimously voted to advise our members to reject this pay offer.

Since then, preparations have been under way by all parties to prepare communications and it has been agreed that these would be issued today.

Employer's pay offer main points

The employer proposes:

• A 4% increase to all pay points and bands
• A 4% increase to the following allowances: London Weighting,Prison Supplement and Standby
• Removing the minimum pay point of Band A to maintain a 5% difference between the maximum point Band 6

The employer will be issuing the full offer - with details of changes to the monetary value of all pay points - to all staff via the HMPPS Intranet - this afternoon.

Some reasons why you are being asked to reject the offer

It’s an insult
Following a disrespectful delay of over a year since the union claim was submitted, a 4% rise after years of inferior pay rises for Probation staff is an insult. The offer fails to come anywhere near to our original claim of 12% and doesn’t reflect the fact that Government Ministers have praised the huge efforts of Probation Staff in terms of their efforts to deliver Government initiatives, for example on numerous schemes to relieve prison overcrowding, in the midst of an ongoing workload crisis. It’s time that our pay should reflect that fact, and that our pay award should match the words of praise from Ministers and HMPPS senior managers.

Inadequate funding and failure to recognise the rise in the cost of living suffered by our members
This pay offer represents what HMPPS tell us were the results of discussions between HMPPS and other parts of Government (the Treasury and Cabinet Office), including the submission of a business case by the former to increase the total amount it can spend on it's wage bill. It is clear that this has produced a completely unsatisfactory outcome, with a pay offer that falls below the recorded inflation figure for all but one month of 2025. If Napo members reject this pay offer resoundingly the onus will be on the Government to produce an improved pay offer as a matter of urgency.

Comparison
The offer does nothing to move us to a position where our salaries are more comparable to those paid to the other staff working within the criminal justice system (including the Prison Service), local government and the wider Civil Service.

Who makes the decisions?
It's clear that despite the commitment of senior management negotiators, we are not in the room with those who make the final decisions on your pay. Even more reason for the Probation Service to be removed from HMPPS and the restrictions of the Civil Service Pay Remit.

Where's the money going?
The Government can seemingly find money to fund new Prisons and spend huge amounts of money on Electronic Monitoring to private companies unfit for purpose Additionally, we know that there has been an underspend of £100 million by the Probation service in this financial year. Why have we not seen any of it?

Reward and Recognition Schemes
Money that should have been made available to all staff is still squirreled away in schemes that in our view are liable to be operated unfairly and without appropriate transparency.

Geographical Allowances and Market Forces Supplements
The employer has refused to offer any movement whatsoever on the above.

Minimum wage implications
Members at the lowest pay point of Band 2 will, on the first of April 2026 yet again see their salary fall below the minimum wage on April 1st because of the inadequate rise to their payband in this pay offer.

What happens next?
We are finalising arrangements to hold an indicative electronic ballot of all full members of Napo (Probation England and Wales) next week.

Full details of the timetable and how to have your say on the 2025-2026 pay offer will be issued in the next few days, with current plans to launch the ballot next Wednesday (4th of February) with this running until the last week of the month. It is probable that the other Probation unions will consult their respective members over the same period. You are not being asked to vote on industrial action and your decision to accept or reject the pay offer will be personal to yourself. If the offer is rejected, then Napo is mandated to organise a separate statutory postal ballot where you will be asked to agree to take action and action short of strike action.

It is vitally important that you ensure that you have registered your preferred e-mail address on the Napo database and checked that we have your correct home postal address. 

If you know of any colleagues who are not a member of a trade union but who are considering joining Napo, it’s important to stress that only members of a trade union will be able to vote in an indicative ballot. All Napo members should do whatever they can to recruit new members as our greatest strength remains in numbers - further information will follow on the 'cut off' date by which new members joining will be able to vote in the ballot on this pay offer after it launches.

Branch meetings
It will be at the discretion of Branches to invite non-union members who may wish to become members of Napo so that they qualify for a vote in the indicative ballot. Branches are asked to avoid holding meetings at the same time as the National meetings listed above.

Napo will be issuing more information imminently in advance of the indicative ballot where you will be asked to vote No to the 2025-2026 pay offer, and you are also urged to take the opportunity to join one of the members meetings to raise questions.

Napo HQ

--oo00oo--

2025/26 probation pay offer confirmed

“In announcing the 2025/26 pay offer, I firstly want to acknowledge the time it has taken and thank you for your patience and understanding. I am also acutely aware that this prolonged process happened during a time of significant change and increased pressures on you. Your unwavering commitment to delivering vital services, supporting people on probation, and keeping communities safe represents the very best of public service.

Through concerted efforts and constructive negotiations, we have secured a headline pay award of 4% for 2025/26. In practice, the increase will be far more for many colleagues, following the pay progression paid in June 2025.

This is one of the most generous offers made in public sector pay, which goes well beyond the government's own guidance on how much public sector pay can increase this year.

We now want to help you to work out precisely what this award means for you. Today we’ve outlined the headline numbers, but this is just the start of our engagement with you on the offer. Your input matters. Please don’t miss the chance to understand the offer to make the right decision for you.”

Following the announcement that pay negotiations with trade unions resumed last week, we can confirm the details of our pay offer for probation staff.

What is the offer

The 2025/26 pay offer for all probation staff includes:

• a headline uplift for all probation staff of 4%
• a 4% increase to all cash allowances including London weighting
• an average increase of 3.44% in pay progression paid in June last year to all eligible colleagues

With the 4% headline uplift and the increases to allowances plus pay progression, the total increase in the probation pay bill would be 6.3%, which is higher than many other public sector workforces. If agreed, the headline uplift will be backdated to April 2025 and you would then receive your uplifted and backdated pay as soon as possible, likely to be April 2026.

What does this mean for me

The 4% headline uplift will be in addition to progression payments made in June. Through progression, some colleagues have received increases of up to 4.8%, with an average increase across the 10 pay ranges of 3.44%.

This offer is among the biggest increases agreed across the public sector, including the Prison Service Pay Review body's recommendations for prison officers. It goes further than the Civil Service guidance that limits headline awards plus pay progression to 3.25%.

Taking into account pay progression paid in June 2025, and the additional headline uplift confirmed today, then the value of the increase to pay for probation as a whole is 6.3%.

You can find more detail on the impact of this offer on different grades in the pay tables below, including actual amounts and increased pay points. For example, a Band 4 probation officer now at pay point 2 of their pay grade would expect to receive an increase of £1,470 for their 2025/2026 pay award, in addition to any progression pay already received.

Weekly drop-in sessions will begin this Wednesday, 28 January, where you can hear more about this offer and ask questions (see below for sign up details).

--oo00oo--

Many will feel these responses from yesterday rather neatly sum things up:-

So after more than a year of deliberate delay, broken ministerial promises, and endless rhetoric about probation “doing the heavy lifting”, this is what lands: 4%. Not 12%. Not pay restoration. Not even inflation. Four per cent - after inflation has already eaten our wages, after workloads exploded, after risk escalated, after staff were told repeatedly that probation was critical to keeping prisons from collapse. NAPO’s unanimous rejection tells you everything you need to know. This isn’t a marginal disagreement. It’s a collective judgement that the offer is fundamentally unacceptable.

Let’s be clear about what this actually is:

• A real-terms pay cut, following years of inferior awards
• A confirmation that CBF was always intended to be rolled into and used to cap any future uplift
• A pay offer that fails to match inflation, let alone restore losses
• A settlement that leaves probation less competitive than prisons, local government and the wider Civil Service
• An insult to experienced staff who received no CBF progression and carried the service anyway
• And a political choice, not a financial necessity

The most damning line in the letter is this: “We are not in the room with those who make the final decisions.” Exactly. Probation staff are expected to absorb risk, violence, scrutiny and public blame while Treasury and Cabinet Office quietly decide we are not worth paying.

Meanwhile:

• £700m is found for tagging
• Billions are found for prisons
• Private contractors remain funded despite being unfit for purpose
• £100m sits underspent in probation
• And staff at the bottom of Band 2 will fall below minimum wage again

This isn’t incompetence. It’s contempt. The service is being hollowed out, automated, deskilled and run on goodwill — and when staff finally ask to be paid properly, they’re told this is the best that can be done. It isn’t. This offer doesn’t stabilise probation. It accelerates its collapse. And anyone surprised by the anger that follows hasn’t been listening for the past decade.

******

A year’s delay, broken promises, and endless praise for “exceptional effort” and the outcome is 4%. That isn’t recognition. It’s a pay cut dressed up as an offer. Money can be found for prisons, tagging and private contractors, but not for the staff holding the system together. Even now, some will drop below minimum wage next year. That tells you exactly where probation sits in the hierarchy. NAPO's unanimous rejection says this clearly: this isn’t bad luck or fiscal reality it’s a political choice. And it confirms what many already know: probation is expected to absorb risk, blame and damage on the cheap.

******
4% is disgusting. Why wait 12 months only to offer us the exact same amount as prison were offered almost immediately? It demonstrates quite clearly where they see us in terms of priorities and value. All the waffle about Probation doing the heavy lifting and the extra stuff they asked from us, then give us such an insulting offer.

******
Let’s be clear about where we actually are, because the anger is justified but the process still matters. No one is voting on strike yet. This ballot is about accepting or rejecting the offer. If members reject it, Napo is then legally required to run a separate statutory ballot on industrial action (including action short of strike). That’s not weakness or delay, that’s the law.

What does matter right now is unity. The employer will happily watch us turn on each other – POMs vs COMs, prison vs community – because division does their job for them. This offer didn’t land because of colleagues in other roles. It landed because probation, as a whole, has been deprioritised for 15 years.

If you want to express your opposition:

• Vote to reject.
• Engage with the union consultation.
• Challenge management narratives that call this a “good offer”.
• Stop donating goodwill.

Arguing sideways only weakens the one bit of leverage we still have: collective rejection.

*****
So when the system decides a role is important, money appears quickly and without drama. JAC chairs get a 30% uplift “to reflect the demands of the role”. Judges receive 7%, then 6%, then 7% again, explicitly to protect recruitment and quality. Treasury objections melt away when the work is seen as valuable and the risk of failure is politically uncomfortable.

Probation doesn’t get that treatment. After a year of delay, we’re offered 4% — below inflation — while being told it’s “good value” and should be welcomed. That isn’t economics. It’s hierarchy. Some roles are protected. Others are expected to absorb decline quietly.

And this is exactly why the blue-on-blue arguments are a distraction. POMs, COMs, VLOs didn’t design this system or set these pay priorities. The contempt runs upwards, not sideways. Division just makes it easier to keep doing this to us again next year.

The message is simple and consistent: probation work is praised rhetorically, but priced as expendable. Until that contradiction is confronted collectively, the pattern won’t change and the figures already tell us everything we need to know.

******

This is exactly the sleight of hand people are calling out. CBF progression was already costed, agreed and paid in June under the existing three-year deal. It was not new money, not a concession, and not part of this year’s negotiation. Folding it back in now to inflate the headline figure is double-counting.

The only new money on the table for 2025/26 is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being cited – the “average 6.3%”, the “generosity”, the comparison with other sectors – relies on re-labelling progression that staff had already earned and already received.

That’s why the offer feels dishonest. If the deal were genuinely 6.3%, it would be paid as 6.3% to everyone. It isn’t. For anyone at the top of their band, or anyone who didn’t receive progression, this is a flat 4% after a year-long delay, backdated and paid a year late.

Calling this one of the “most generous offers in the public sector” doesn’t make it so. It’s an accounting exercise designed to mask a below-inflation rise by recycling money that was never in dispute. And staff are right to be angry about it.

*****
This isn’t spin, it’s gaslighting. The only new money in this deal is the 4% headline uplift. Everything else being claimed – the “average 3.44%”, the “total 6.3%”, the talk of generosity is money already agreed, already costed and already paid last June under a previous deal. Recycling that progression to inflate the headline is double-counting. If this were really a 6.3% pay rise, everyone would be getting 6.3%. They aren’t. For anyone at the top of their band, this is just 4% after a year-long delay, below inflation and paid late. Staff aren’t angry because they don’t understand the maths, they’re angry because they do.

There Is Another Way

It's good to see work continues to make the case for a different probation model and it must be hoped that Members of Parliament, the MoJ and HMPPS take careful note:-.  

Napo and WCCSJ set out a new vision for probation in Wales

Napo joined Welsh Government representatives and academic partners at the House of Lords to make the case for a standalone probation service for Wales separate from prisons, embedded in communities, and built around skilled professional relationships.

Welsh Minister Mark Drakeford was joined by Ella Rabaiotti, from the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice (WCCSJ), and Napo’s Su McConnel, at a December meeting in the House of Lords focussed on the proposals to devolve Policing, Probation and Youth Justice.

Minister Drakeford gave an overview of the Welsh Government position and an update about developments in Youth Justice and Policing, before handing over to members of Wales Probation Development Group, part of WCCSJ. Ella Rabaiotti and Su McConnel presented a summary of a new model for probation in Wales. The recently published model builds on research and expertise outlined in earlier published papers “Towards a Devolved Probation Service in Wales”.

Su McConnel informed the meeting that the model of a Welsh Probation Service proposed in this publication would see “A standalone Probation Service, not within the civil service, and separate from Prisons, contributing to Welsh Government social policy and justice objectives. This Welsh Probation Service would be embedded in its communities, close to families and working with, and commissioning, local services and groups. It would impact on the prison crisis and reduce re-offending, be closely linked to courts, see increased restorative justice work, and foster relationships with the voluntary sector”

Former probation officer, Ella Rabaiotti, now a senior lecturer at Swansea University, emphasised the importance of highly skilled engagement between the probation practitioner and service user as central to reducing re-offending. “We know what works” she said, “and research confirms the centrality of a good professional relationship to potential success in Probation and in the absence of such a relationship, most if not all interventions would not be realised”

The small but influential group of Lords attending listened closely and asked searching questions.

Later, Mark Drakeford said “Many thanks to Baroness Ilora Finlay for calling together members of the House of Lords with an interest in the devolution of criminal justice to Wales, and particularly the probation service. The case for devolution is already made. What we are focused on now is demonstrating the positive difference devolution would make. Nowhere is that more evident that in the probation service. The House of Lords events brought together practitioners, academics and law-makers to affirm the case for a locally-based service, rooted in the courts and the communities which it can serve’.

Ella Rabaiotti said “ The Wales Probation Development Group remain keen to collaborate broadly, including with policy makers, probation allies, and particularly Napo members and probation practitioners to develop this model further”

Su McConnel commented “nothing proposed in our joint work with WCCSJ would not apply, broadly across England as well as Wales. The devolution debate allows us to reconsider models for a future Probation Service”

Custody and Community Debate

From time to time contributions come in that seem particularly noteworthy, but are in danger of being 'lost' in amongst a number of matters being discussed. I'm not a user of Linkedin, but I feel the following discussions seem worthy of note and consideration:- 

This may need to be added over a few comments. I came across an interesting discussion on LinkedIn today about the widening divide between custody and community perspectives on probation training, recruitment, and retention. On one side, a custody SPO (and others) argue that prison staff should not only be paid more than community staff to train as probation officers, but also recognised as stronger rehabilitation professionals, even suggesting that Napo should be absorbed into the POA. On the other, a community SPO (and others) respond highlighting the distinct skills, ethos, and culture of probation practice, stressing that the real focus should be on fair pay, retention, and valuing the unique role of probation staff. Then there are those who sit somewhere in between.

My own view? Frankly, I’m not surprised by the custody SPO’s position, it reflects the wider tone of HMPPS towards probation. You can’t justify paying one group more to complete the same training others are paid less for. And the worst thing probation could do right now is move closer to the prison model, when in truth, it should be finding its way back to independence from it, and back towards social work values. I agree that Napo, in its current form, holds little weight to support probation staff, but that says more about its poor leadership and lack of clear identity and silly name, than about the need for a strong, dedicated union.

There’s a reason why probation models and youth justice services that use social workers are thriving. How difficult would it really be to take the £700 million set aside for tagging and AI, and instead invest it into a 20% pay rise across all probation bands, while giving all qualified probation officers and senior probation officers the all expenses paid fast track option to top up their qualifications to align with a Diploma in Social Work? That’s not radical, it’s just common sense. Probation recruitment and retention would go through the roof.Either way, it’s an important debate, and if you’re on LinkedIn (for what it’s worth), you might want to join in too.

The discussion:

Senior Probation Officer - OMiC writes:

From Custody to Community: How Joined-Up Thinking Could Solve the Retention Crisis:

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is facing a serious staffing challenge. Recent data shows that around 12% of prison officers left the service in the past year, while around 7% of probation officers also moved on.

The qualification issue: 

Within HMPPS, the early-career routes couldn’t look more different. On the custody side, you’ve got the Unlocked Graduates scheme — a two-year leadership programme aimed at high-calibre graduates, often including a master’s in Applied Custodial Leadership. These officers work directly on the landings, managing behaviour, leading culture change and helping people in custody turn a corner.

Then there’s the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) — the pathway to becoming a fully qualified Probation Officer. It blends academic study with hands-on training in the community, supporting people on licence, managing risk and guiding rehabilitation beyond the prison walls. What I see: As a Senior Probation Officer working in OMiC, I get a rare view into both worlds. And honestly? Every week, hundreds of officers on the landings are already doing informal probation work — supporting resettlement plans, calming parole anxieties, talking about change and future risks.

So why don’t more Prison Officers take the step into probation? I manage 7 incredible Prison Offender Managers. If one wanted to retrain as a Probation Officer, they’d have to take roughly a £12,000 pay cut for two years, and then spend another four slowly climbing back to their current wage. That’s not a transition, that’s a punishment for ambition.

The union tug-of-war: 

Since the unification of the Prison and Probation services, HMPPS has struggled to truly align its policies, recruitment or culture. Part of that comes from the POA and NAPO pulling in different directions — both doing their jobs protecting members’ interests, but often reinforcing the divide instead of bridging it. Rehabilitation needs to be prioritised over politics.

My proposal: unify and empower: Here’s what I believe HMPPS could do:

1. Unify the graduate pathways – merge Unlocked and PQiP into a shared entry route, offering placements across custody and community, without one being seen as “the better” option.

2. Align pay and progression – no more financial penalties for moving between the two arms of the service.

3. Recognise experience – if a Prison Offender Manager has proven themselves over several years, with strong management feedback, let them complete PQiP on their current salary.

Imagine the possibilities: Unified training. Shared pay structure. It’s not radical, it’s logical. The people, the skills and the passion already exist inside HMPPS. We just need to make it easier for them to move, grow and stay. Let’s make “crossing the line” between prison and probation an opportunity, not a career setback.

Senior Probation Officer - Community responds:

Really thoughtful post. It’s pragmatic to look at options, but also to remember that while there are crossovers these can be very different jobs, reflecting the distinct cultures of custody and community even within HMPPS. Probation has always had a rehabilitation and social work ethos, attracting to the training both graduates and those with valuable life or second-career experience, including many from prisons, the military, police, youth justice and the third sector.

If unions secure better pay, that will help attract and retain great staff. But I’d doubt they’d be any merging professional identities, many still see Napo as the distinct professional voice for probation, perhaps increasingly the Probation Institute is too.

I’d also like to see more inclusion of those with Lived Experience in accessing probation training which has long been acknowledged as a thing. [See Prisoners today Professionals tomorrow.] 

And maybe, call me old school, a return to “advise, assist and befriend,” as I wrote here. In concluding I consider what the future could look like too. 

Senior Probation Officer - OMiC responds to Senior Probation Officer - Community:

Completely with you — although I’d also say that, informally, “advise, assist and befriend” has almost become the quiet mantra for many prison officers these days, while the Probation Service has, somewhat ironically, drifted into being seen as the more punitive arm of HMPPS (just think of recall).

I’ll always be a champion for unions (spot the Labour voter). But controversially, I do think NAPO’s influence outweighs its actual size. It feels like a small union that punches well above its weight in terms of narrative and policy sway. I’d be curious to see the numbers, what percentage of the Probation Service are actually NAPO members?

I also don’t agree with NAPO’s stance on dissolving HMPPS. In my view, the Probation Service would be significantly weaker without that structural alignment. The truth is that the average Joe Bloggs doesn’t fully understand what probation does, nor its value to public protection. Without that connection to the prison service, the incentive to prioritise funding, wage increases, or recruitment would likely shrink even further. Dissolving HMPPS might sound empowering in theory, but in practice it risks leaving probation more isolated and under-resourced than ever.

Senior Probation Officer - Community further responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

I see a lot of good rehabilitation and reintegration work happening in probation offices.It’s fair to say that identity has become a key challenge, not just in England and Wales, but across Europe. It’s also something I wrote about recently, exploring how probation can reclaim and shape its identity. Perhaps Napo shares a similar concern, without a clear and credible identity, distinct from punishment or risk-led narratives, probation risks being misunderstood and constrained by external pressures.

I concluded, and I think this is where we probably agree, that “the future of probation lies in evidence-based reform, practitioner development, and adequate resourcing.” It’s a conversation we should all be part of, and well done for putting your ideas out there. [See Shaping Probations Identity]

Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

Managing high risk and very high ROSH in the community takes skill and experience balancing risk, criminogenic needs and building a meaningful rapport take time to learn and implement. There are key skills within this mix that just aren't being taught early enough through traditional qualifications. Qualifications should align to the job role. A very real problem we have is offering criminology qualifications that offer no opportunity to access criminal justice agencies or provide students with a skill set required to make it in criminal justice.There isn't enough happening in our schools to show prison or probabtion jobs as attractive

Well-being Consultant responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

This is really interesting to read , there's also conversations to be had about why staff are leaving. As an ex senior probation officer myself I've heard of so many staff leaving owing to poor mental health and management. Staffing includes retention.

Financial Investigator responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC: 

Why “From Custody to Community” Sounds Great — But Wouldn’t Work (Yet) The idea of merging prison and probation pathways under one unified entry route sounds smart: shared training, smoother transitions, and stronger collaboration. But in practice, it’s not that simple.
Different roles, different skills. Custody work focuses on safety, order, and behaviour management. Probation is about risk assessment, rehabilitation, and community reintegration. Blending them risks diluting both professions. 

Training and accreditation gaps. Unlocked and PQiP have distinct standards and academic structures. Unifying them would require rewriting qualification frameworks and rebuilding university partnerships — a huge reform effort.

Culture and identity. Prison and probation services have very different working cultures and priorities. Without deeper organisational alignment, a joint route could cause confusion rather than cohesion. Pay parity won’t solve retention. Matching salaries helps, but it doesn’t fix core issues like workload, burnout, or lack of support.

Union and structural barriers. POA and NAPO protect different workforces. Blurring boundaries would trigger long negotiations over representation and progression. Food for thought.

Unlocked Graduates Ambassador responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC:

This is an interesting take. Sadly the unlocked programme is not likely to be recruiting a cohort for a while because they haven’t come to a procurement agreement with the government. As someone who’s just left the prison service (and an unlocked ambassador), I can say that the opportunity for prison officers to do real rehabilitative work is currently in direct conflict with how prisons are run (think regime, regime, regime) and the prioritization of security. I personally really had to carve out opportunities on my own - which often meant putting in many more hours than the core working day. I’m now looking at joining the probation service myself, so would definitely welcome an approach like the one you suggest - I wonder if it is something that has ever been considered in policy.

Andrew Bridges responds to Senior Probation Officer- OMiC: 

It’s not just the unions who won’t like your idea, Ed. Your point about the disincentives to ‘career progression’ within Probation is not new, but very well made here, and in broad terms I’d support it, based on my views about many PSOs over the years, as well as Prison Officers. There are many interests that would resist such a radical rethink. 

End

Thats it - That’s not radical. It’s just common sense. Agree or disagree, these are the conversations probation needs — not led by academics or think tanks, but by the people doing the work every day, willing to stand up, speak out, and be heard.

*******

1. Unify the graduate pathways – merge Unlocked and PQiP into a shared entry route, offering placements across custody and community, without one being seen as “the better” option.

- No. They’re two different courses for two fundamentally different roles.

2. Align pay and progression – no more financial penalties for moving between the two arms of the service.

- Yes. Probation staff should receive the same pay rises and bonuses already given to those in prisons. Equality works both ways.

3. Recognise experience – if a Prison Offender Manager has proven themselves over several years, with strong management feedback, let them complete PQiP on their current salary.

- No. That would mean prison staff being paid more than probation trainees for the same qualification and role, or even matching the pay of internal probation PSOs on the progression pathway. In fact, with prison pay rises and bonuses, they’d end up earning more. That’s unequal pay, plain and simple.

Imagine the possibilities: Unified training. Shared pay structure.

- Not if it erases the identity and value of the probation service. This is what happens when prison-led management drives the agenda. Next you’ll be arguing locking cell doors compares to probation work!

Final thought:

It’s not radical, it’s ridiculous. And that’s what happens when you use AI to draft a proposal to “unify and empower” a broken service like HMPPS.

*******

Fully agree with you. I think most of our problems have stemmed from being so intertwined with the Prisons (as do most commentators on here I believe) Probation should go back to being seen as an Alternative to custody not an extension of custody as we in all sense are today. Prisons have it relatively easy in the sense they can lock them away, seg them, and chuck them out even if they have no address or referrals to support services. They don't have to worry about SFO's unless they stupidly wrongly release them which with today's technology beggers belief. It's not a comparable job apart from we deal with the same people, but that's like saying a brain surgeon and a chiropodist have a similar role...

********

Shows how disconnected from reality probation managers are once they step through the prisons gate. They have to say all that as they’re line managed by prison governors which makes no sense at all. How Prison Officers are submitting a 26/27 payclaim when probation staff get nothing is beyond me.

Napo AGM 2025

It's nearly time for the Napo AGM starting on Thursday afternoon and it's interesting to see what are the most important issues for members as recorded by the ballot results. Coming in at the top scoring 80 is:- 

Get us out of HMPPS

"This AGM notes the Probation Service is being used to mop up the overcrowding situation in our prisons without regard to our own role and probation ethos. Our management has been subsumed by prison staff and prison culture, diluting our professional integrity.

This AGM believes the Probation Service needs to retain its identity and professional standards by being truly independent from HMPPS. This AGM calls on Napo to campaign to remove us from HMPPS control and the wider Civil Service."

Next up with 68 votes is:- 

Labour must urgently deliver on its promise to review Probation Governance 

"Probation is in crisis and has been so for so long now that crisis seems routine. The HMPPS model of a combined prison and probation service is defunct, never having been fit for purpose. To coin a phrase, it is irredeemably flawed. In its manifesto for election, the now Labour Government promised a review of the governance of Probation. Our frustration that this has not been announced alongside the sentencing review cannot be overstated. 

The repeated MoJ excuse for inaction, that probation staff are weary of change, is hollow. Since TR, all changes to probation have been against the expressed wishes and good judgment of experts and practitioners. 

The repeated assertion that staff recruitment and retention will fill the void, is belied by the failure of attempts to secure this. Asking rats to board or remain on a sinking ship is a folly.

The promised review of the governance of Probation is urgently needed. Napo will communicate the urgent need for a review of Probation governance, as promised in the Labour manifesto, to the Minister, and campaign vigorously for it, keeping members and activists informed as to progress."

Then scoring 65 is:-

You can’t punish someone back to health

"There is a wealth of data, research and inspection reporting to demonstrate that Probation is a sick and traumatised organisation, and the toll that this is taking on our members is both unacceptable and unsustainable. 

The sickness absence data reflects this. Individuals are having their health and happiness wrecked. Wellbeing initiatives are laudable and beneficial but should complement, not replace, good Health and Safety practice. 

H&S is often derided, but with a workforce that is neither healthy nor safe, it’s time for the employer to desist from blaming the individual for their lack of resilience/yoga/mindfulness and get real with workloads, staff support and rewards. 

Napo has already won agreement from our employer that absence management policy should be pursued with more humanity and kindness. What is not clear to our members is whether this is percolating down through the organisation. Kind words at the top mean nothing if individuals are still subject to cruel and inflexible sickness management. Managers must be supported in exercising discretion in applying absence policies. 

Napo will demand from HMPPS a regular review of sickness absence management data and other evidence to firmly establish that management discretion in absence management processes is being encouraged and used."

Then scoring 61:-

Toolkits no longer fit for purpose

"With the advent of the ‘one size fits all programme’ and delivery reduced to High and Very High Risk clients, Community Offender Managers are left delivering toolkits on a 1-2-1 basis with increasing numbers of clients. 

Many of the toolkits, such as Maps for Change, are complex and difficult pieces of work that require a lot of time to prepare and deliver and training to deliver these toolkits effectively is inadequate. 

We call on Napo to demand that the employer consults on developing new toolkits and 1-2-1 work that are dynamic and easier to access. We also need better training to be able to deliver these interventions to a high and consistent standard to enable clients to engage with an effective change process."

Then scoring 59:-

Workload Stress should be recorded in RIDDOR

"This AGM notes with concern that workload stress, which can affect staff for more than three days sickness, is not recordable for Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR), which undermines the seriousness of the condition of workload stress and wellbeing. This AGM agrees to raise this issue within the wider TUC movement, which will lead to a campaign to get workload stress with more than three days sickness absence recordable in RIDDOR."

Then scoring 53:-

OMiC Not Fit for Purpose!! 

"This AGM believes the OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) Model is not fit for purpose. Prisoners are commonly being released into the community without resettlement plans due to staff shortages in prison and in sentence management in the community. Probation staff in prisons are also feeling isolated and disenfranchised since their direct line management moved across to the Prison Governors, who may direct to prioritise prison targets, overriding the focus on resettlement planning. 

This AGM notes the introduction of short sentence legislation, such as SDS40 and HDC365, as well as the forthcoming Sentencing Review, namely FTR48, has only increased the pressure due to last minute notification of immediate releases on already limited probation resources, which is unsustainable. 

This AGM urges Napo to work immediately towards the cancellation of OMiC and return Prison Probation management to the Probation Service, helping us to regain our independence and get our voices back."

--oo00oo--

Those familiar with AGM preceedure will be aware that the running order will be slightly different as committee and network motions take precedence and compositing of motions is taken into account. I think we can take some satisfaction from the fact that all the above has been extensively discussed on here at various times, demonstrating the continuing relevance and value of the platform for topical debate and discussion. 

As I have previously mentioned, I'm no longer a member and cannot attend, but hopefully some readers may feel able to share on here thoughts and reflections, particularly in relation to keynote speakers including Liz Saville-Roberts MP, HMI Martin Jones and Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards. I will be in Eastbourne on Thursday at the Cornfield Garage Wetherspoons, certainly from 7pm and hope to meet a few colleagues old and new for a bevvy or two. Cheers.     

OMiC is a failure!

I notice the following was published by Napo on Wednesday 8th October:-

OMIC Review

Napo has pushed for a fundamental review of OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) for years and we welcome in principle the recent announcement of this by HMPPS. OMIC has never worked as it was intended to. In far too many prisons across England and Wales staffing levels have been too low, with too much work expected of Probation staff, with constant change throughout the time of OMiC's existence, for example the following two developments that have been implemented by HMPPS in recent years. The line management of Senior Probation Officer's in Offender Management Units (OMUs) passing to Governor-grade staff in public sector Prisons, consistently opposed by Napo, has been incredibly problematic and stressful for those involved. The merger of Pre-Release Teams and OMUs has also increased the push/pull factors on role boundaries, job descriptions and spans of control for management and probation staff alike.

The review is being undertaken by means of 2 different surveys and face to face workshops. Unfortunately, the unions did not have sight of these documents until they were sent out to OMU and other Prison staff. Members have been contacting us regarding the length and suitability of questions in this survey, many telling us it's taking too much of their already scarce time to complete and they don't really know what they are being asked for. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the survey if it is disregarded, returned incomplete or incorrectly filled in. The survey results alone cannot become the sole basis for reconstruction if they are so flawed. If I can compare the survey to the foundations of a house we already seem to be heading for considerable subsidence.

We recently received a letter from the HMPPS senior leaders regarding this review, setting out the following aims:

Align with sentencing reform – so we can deliver the sentence progression requirements introduced by ISR without compromising public protection standards

Unfortunately we have not yet seen details of how this will look and the processes involved in order to try to mitigate the impact of these changes on our members. Napo continue to have significant concerns about the additional work this will require of Probation staff, in prisons as well as the community, and the basic feasibility of these 'progression' proposals in the current Sentencing Bill.

Release workforce capacity – streamline case management processes and rebalance prison and probation roles, thereby releasing some Probation Officer resource for deployment to priority areas of active public risk. 

While we have received assurances from HMPPS centrally that the redeployment of Probation staff in Prisons is not the object of this review we are receiving mixed messages as the above aim seems to be supporting such moves. Similarly, an ongoing activity timing review involving OMIC includes a separate survey of prison roles being undertaken as part of workforce planning, and we have been made aware some members of regional senior management are already telling people this will result in moving prison probation staff back to the field. Again, Napo has not been officially informed of these potentially dramatic changes which, in our view, is totally unacceptable practice and is not in the spirit of meaningful consultation. We will continue to support and represent our members working in Prisons who are being impacted by this chaotic approach being taken, or allowed to persist, by HMPPS. We will continue to bring pressure on the employer to ensure Napo and all other relevant trade unions are appropriately included going forwards. If you become aware of discussions or comments on the potential redeployment of Prison-based staff please notify us and ensure you raise it with your local Branch for inclusion on the local/regional meetings that take place between the trade unions and employer.

Provide operational consistency and quality – reduce model complexity, clarify roles for Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs), and embed a single, nationally understood way of working. 

This is the most straightforward aim and Napo has no issues with this as it underpins the reasons for the review. The way in which this is being done, and the apparent failure of appropriate trade union consultation, is the issue.

Produce digital enablement – propose pragmatic adjustments to OASys/ARNS and hand over processes. 

While we agree with the sentiment, we would all love to be able to streamline OASys and the new ARNS assessment, we are sensible of the fact there still need to be a robust and accurate risk assessment and risk management plan in place for cases. We have very real concerns that community-based Probation staff will be left having to pick up more tasks if pre-release work is 'pragmatically adjusted' without careful consideration and planning on the impact of all involved.

Enable timely national implementation – by Spring 2026.

The review is expected to conclude by the end of the year, with implementation of agreed changes scheduled for Spring 2026, in line with Independent Sentencing Review recommendations.

Given the scope of the review, issues with the surveys and the lack of proper trade union consultation it is likely this a wholly unrealistic deadline. Napo is willing to work with the employer on behalf of our members but we need not only a seat at the table but access to significant information that seems to be currently withheld from us. This is not the kind of working relationship that helps support staff morale or retention.

We were informed that "Engagement sessions were underway with frontline staff, operational leaders, and key stakeholders providing valuable insights into current challenges and opportunities" These have now completed without giving the unions enough warning to be able to support our members to have meaningful engagement with them. This is a shame as it is vital to get your voices heard. I would urge members to report back to Napo with any issues, concerns and positives that come out of these sessions so we can be as informed as possible in order to support you. We are told that "Formal consultation with Trade Unions (POA, PGA, NTUS, and Probation TUs: NAPO, UNISON, GMB SCOOP) will follow once proposals are finalised."

We would argue we should be involved in helping to formulate these proposals instead of having to untangle the problems when they are implemented.

--oo00oo--

When the subject was mentioned the other day, it generated the following responses:-

hmmm, not a good look; it reads to me like napo whining about how they've been totally sidelined & completely outmanoeuvred by hmpps (again).

Agree, HMPPS couldn't care less what NAPO wants or thinks. But in all honesty from my experience, OMIC provides us with nothing at all, I don't see any value in Probation being in the Prisons and usually anything I need is provided by the Prison key workers. All over this blog people say we need to be distinct from Prisons so pull out all Probation and provide some actual work relief to officers in the community! I'd also tell the Prisons it's their responsibility to do all pre-release work including not being able to release anyone until they have secured accommodation.

On the subject of accommodation upon release, the calendar shows that on xmas eve this year there will be five days worth of prisoners released, many of whom will be homeless. The following week is not much better. Maybe people need to start raising the issue now rather than being confronted with it on the day.

I read recently that the national average for prisoners being released homeless is 16% and rising rapidly. That has to impact quite significantly on government plans when it comes to tagging and recalls.

A Champion Speaks

With the government inexorably moving to the right with increasingly punitive measures that will inevitably affect the probation service and growing concern of its re-branding as a punishment service, I thought it a good idea to be reminded of the days when we had champions. What on earth would Mike Guilfoyle have made of things I wonder? Here he is reflecting in his inimitable style in a 'thought piece' written for the British Journal of Community Justice in 2013:- 

A PROBATION OFFICER'S BRIEF REFLECTIONS ON TWENTY YEARS OF REHABILITATIVE TRANSFORMATION 

In the autumn of 1990 I vividly recall my introductory visit to the probation office in North London that was to become the crucible in which my twenty year career as a probation officer was launched. The modern office block that housed the probation team was adjacent to an even newer Magistrates’ Court, 'the palace of justice', opined the avuncular Assistant Chief Probation Officer, during my orientation week. I was slowly but methodically inducted into what appeared at the time an almost quasi-masonic occupational rite of passage, the richly grounded foundations of probation practice, the working credos of individual practitioners and Jarvis shaped procedural requirements, unfolded by my probation colleagues. My allocated generic supervision team comprised a disparate but highly skilled and vastly experienced team of practitioners whose congruent value base offered a nuanced balancing of the thorny tension evinced by the thread of supervisory care and control neatly meshed with my emerging probation identity. Having undertaken a post-graduate Certificate of Qualification in Social Work and immersed myself in the lore of social work practice, in mental health and child protection field placements, I had secured to my unexpected delight a placement in a field team in South London which specialised in pre-sentence reports - then known as social enquiry reports. However I still felt professionally ill-equipped to handle the multiple casework challenges that were associated with a community that, in most respects, had all the textbook characteristics of Inner London's social deprivation and indicative levels of crime and disorder.

However the historic organisational arrangements pertaining in London at that time seemed anomalous to me. The borough boundary straddled by one of London's main arterial roads often excited some liminal disputes as to whose responsibility it was to prepare reports and assist discharged prisoners (who, although not on statutory licence, frequently called in to see the duty officer for help and advice). Providing continuity of supervision when addresses between boroughs often shifted on a regular basis due to the rootless lifestyles of many of those on supervision was what probation officers did.

The presence and availability of skilled, highly trained and experienced practitioners was of inestimable value and this was most in evidence when at weekly team meetings the allocation of reports was keenly debated and such deliberations were framed and informed by a well-crafted casework sensitivity of fractured lives whose paths to offending were shaped by the perceived structural and social deficits of poor educational opportunity, joblessness, addictive behaviours and homelessness. One colleague whose resort to assertive advocacy on behalf of prisoners and hearty embrace of the use of benign authority (pro-socially modelling, avant la lettre!) in client supervision, worked tirelessly to motivate and ensure some of those most likely to harm others always featured prominently in regular cross-country prison visits. She brought her cogent practice wisdom to the attention of policy makers in parliament and her strengths based and family focussed work with prisoners shaped some of her subsequent evidence informed and innovative work with sex offenders.

I was thankful that I was able to appear as a working probation officer with organisational sanction, when visible media interest was safely negotiated with the local newspaper that focused on "How probation contributed to safer communities". This was swiftly followed by an appearance with a probationer on BBC Newsnight on the best way of ensuring 'through the gate' support for ex-prisoners! Of course the low public profile of probation, outside of the critical negativity of more recent "supervisory failures" and what some view as a wider benign indifference to its work might be seen as a harbinger of just how susceptible it has been to the implementing of some of the more far reaching organisational reforms of recent times from the introduction of the National Offender Management Service to the current seismic Transforming Rehabilitation agenda.

To this end, report writing and the preeminent need to recommend to the judiciary the most bespoke sentencing options was reinforced by a well-developed and peer led gate keeping process that enabled neophytes as well as experienced colleagues, the opportunity to refine and discursively reflect on the impact of sentencing that might further disadvantage those whose shaping narrative of socially determined delinquency might further embed them in the criminal justice system. I was adjured on one occasion to attend a Crown Court hearing to present my report on a young woman whose offending was of a very serious nature. Her distressing and abusive domestic circumstances merited, after some considered supervisory case discussion with the senior probation officer, a "welfare oriented"' intervention (this was prior to probation becoming a sentence in its own right) and although the sentencing judge was unimpressed with the recommendation, he nonetheless was appreciative of the commitment and time expended by my presence as the author of the report in court.

The formative supervisory experience afforded by the time honoured practice of graduated caseload increases, supportive managerial oversight and added casework complexity over the "probationary" year for newly appointed probation officers, enabled the acquisition of new found skills in dynamic casework and the "smell of practice" on joint prison visits, shared case conference participation and doubling up on home visits. The vestigial Divorce Court Welfare role was also finding another institutional direction as I was entering probation. The time allotted to assimilating the practitioner’s knowledge bank around the diverse range of partnership organisations locally commissioned who worked with probation was invaluable as one needed time to gain such a ready familiarity with providers best suited to individual needs. Who to refer to and who to consult with, began to play an integral part in the compass of supervisory oversight. The local "spike" for homeless men, which had a much derided reputation from service users, began to work in lockstep with the courts and referring probation officers, once some of the vexed issues around institutional caretaking were flagged up in joint meetings and court liaison seminars.

This inveterate sense of the professionally compelling need to work together with others in the wider community to provide a skilled, purposeful, engaged and meaningful supervisory experience was brought home to me most poignantly when I was allocated supervisory responsibility for a woman who had a long standing and problematic drug and alcohol dependency. This was compounded by very enmeshed and abusive relationships which resulted in the build up of a persistent pattern of acquisitive offending, in which periods in custody interspersed periods of short -lived abstinence on release and recurrent relapses that meant reporting requirements under the incipient national standards framework (which had in the interim been tightened up but still offered some discretionary space) were often breached. Working together with drug and alcohol agencies and attending numerous Crown Court hearings as a referral to residential treatment was arranged, consumed considerable amounts of professional time and attention. The Crown Court judge, well versed in the therapeutic nomenclature of drug and probation reports, acceded to the final adjournment pending admittance. However the debilitating strain of remaining drug and alcohol-free proved too great and tragically she absconded and shortly thereafter died from an overdose in very disturbing circumstances. When I collected her personal belongings from HMP Holloway to pass onto family members, she had written on a scrap of paper. "Tell Mike that I will not let him down this time"! 

The shifting political and managerial environment manifested most clearly in the introduction of tightened national standards, diminution of professional autonomy and greater national accountability to government began to impact. For many this was detrimental to the service's core professionalism and foundational ethos, more particularly with the undue emphasis on the management of supervision rather than the content, with a shriller emphasis on the macho-correctional language of offender management and the removal of the word 'probation' from court orders, foreshadowed with the inauguration of the National Probation Service in 2001. The "triune dicta" of enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection, enshrined in the NPS objectives strap line, reframed from "advise, assist and befriend" ,was augmented by a programme of wholesale computerisation, standardised offending behaviour programmes and ever more desk bound, office-centric laborious assessment tools. 

I worked as a probation officer through some turbulent political times and will readily admit to a considerable degree of occupational dissonance with the introduction of some of the target fixated coercive managerial imperatives that disfigured the workplace, demoralised probation workers, as well as the insidious attenuation of the probation identity meshed within the dominant prison-centric penal command and control world view of NOMS. The amount of time spent in front of computer screens compiling routine risk assessments remains perversely disproportionate. The demographic profile of probation staff has changed and the contemporary probation culture is certainly more diverse. The role of trade unions in probation and in particular Napo has been for me a powerful and tenacious influence in helping me to understand, respond and cope with many of the changes alluded to above.

It seems that the present Transforming Rehabilitation proposals if enacted will fast become a legislative bludgeoning engine intent on dismantling probation and offering in its place a largely fissiparous mix comprising a skein of lowest bidders and corporate raiders. This will almost inevitably undermine and fragment a service that already works best in cooperation and in multi-agency partnerships, that has at its heart a commitment to working holistically, with a resilient belief in the possibility of motivated change and reparative action. At a time of reduced resources the service helps to reduce the harms of offending at the local level in communities blighted by crime. Probation has made a unique contribution to criminal justice and although many would argue that it has lost much by way of its traditional roots, professionalism and identity, it still merits its place at the centre of any rehabilitative revolution. Arguably it has long been transforming rehabilitation. Let us hope that it can find its voice again?

Mike Guilfoyle, former Probation Officer and Associate Member of Napo

Probation Under Pressure

Monday saw the Howard League hold an online discussion in their Spotlight series devoted to the government's Sentencing Bill. The event was hosted by Director of Campaigns, Andrew Neilson and the panel included: 

• Martin Jones, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation.
• Helen Schofield, Chief Executive of the Probation Institute.
• Tania Bassett, Napo National Official.
• Gaie Delap, a retired teacher who was jailed for her part in a Just Stop Oil protest and later recalled to prison because none of the electronic tracking devices available to the Ministry of Justice were small enough to fit her wrist.

The government has high expectations for its Sentencing Bill, now being scrutinised in Parliament, claiming that its measures will ensure prisons in England and Wales never run out of space again.

But what will this legislation mean for the probation service, which has faced many turbulent challenges over the course of the last decade and must now brace itself for more change?

With proposals that could see people being released from prison earlier in their sentences, combined with more electronic monitoring, changes to unpaid work, the imposition of restriction zones, and curbs on driving and attending public events, the Bill puts an even greater burden on a vital public service already grappling with huge caseloads. Will the promise of £700 million in additional funding be enough?