Being a Probation Services Officer

This article from the Independent, based on an interview with a a PSO with five years experience, admirably encapsulates much of the discourse on the blog in recent time and deserves wide circulation in my view. Thanks go to regular contributor 'Getafix for drawing attention to it:-  

I joined the probation service as a job for life. But after five years, I’ve had enough

‘I never wanted it to come to this’: A probation worker tells Andy Gregory of the daily realities leaving her ‘completely overwhelmed’ as thousands leave the crisis-stricken service

When Mary joined the probation service in 2018, she believed she had found a job for life in helping offenders to rehabilitate back into society and protecting the public.
But just five years later, she has decided to follow more than 2,000 of her colleagues who quit the service in the year to March – a tenth of the full-time workforce.

Following a failed privatisation drive and several high-profile murders in which the probation service had wrongly labelled the killers “medium-risk”, the system is in crisis. Morale is low among staff, two thirds of whom say they are struggling under unmanageable workloads, as last-ditch government plans to free up space in overcrowded prisons threaten to heap an influx of new offenders into their care.

Mary, who is one of around a dozen probation services officers (PSO) in her office, told The Independent of having to personally handle 65 low and medium-risk cases – with inspectors judging that 50 is the limit at which officers can effectively deliver on rehabilitation and public protection.

“That’s 65 different individuals whose risk needs to be managed, most of them being in the community,” she said. “It’s very anxiety-provoking working in these conditions because you just don’t know what’s going to happen, and unfortunately with a lot of practitioners things do get missed.

“Even when they’re in custody, you’re still attending the panels, doing paperwork, reports ... it’s never-ending. I don’t think there’s enough hours in the day to do this job.”

When people under the supervision of probation are charged with committing serious further offences, the official reviews of these cases are circulated among all staff. There were more than 400 reviews in the year to April. When 86 of these cases were analysed by inspectors, 30 involved murder and 20 rape, and in nearly half, the ‘risk of harm’ assessments were found to be inaccurate or incomplete.

“The first thing [the reviews] will say is: ‘caseloads are too high, the practitioner couldn’t manage, this was missed because the practitioner is overworked and had to remember 101 other things’,” Mary said, adding: “It just feels like it’s falling on deaf ears.”

“We are completely overwhelmed, morale is low, and we have multiple people in our offices on long-term sick leave – so six months or more – because it is so stressful,” she continued. Across the service, more than half of sick days last year were related to mental health, which probation inspectors also say is “a reflection of the stress that many staff feel themselves under”.

“The main thing is the lack of staff,” said Mary. “People leave the service because it’s too stressful, but the fact that nobody else is there to share the load – it’s a lot harder.”

But there is strain across the system. “A lot of the work we do, we take on from other services,” said Mary, who received six weeks of training prior to starting as a PSO in 2018.

“It took me two days last week to work on a housing referral because it had 10 pages. That’s not my job, I don’t work for housing, but I know that this person cannot be on the streets of London, because that could make them susceptible to reoffending and put the public in danger.

“We don’t want that, so now I’m doing everybody else’s job plus my own. It becomes very, very frustrating and you have no work-life balance. I left the office at 10pm last night. I have a key for my office, because I stay there so late that I have to lock up. As soon as I get home I’m in my bed because I’m so tired, so drained. I wake up at 6 o’clock again to do it all again. No trainee would see that and think it’s a life they want.”

While a national recruitment drive means there were 2,600 people training to become probation officers as of 31 March, the most recent data showed nearly one in six of trainees were giving up.

“They are thrown in headfirst a lot of the time, which I think is what scares them off,” said Mary, who is in her 30s. “They’re supposed to be protected with the amount of work they have and cases they have, but what I find is that, when the office is in need, then that’s scrapped.”

Mary said she had seen trainees leave with just two months left to complete of their 21-month probation officer training, after hearing their colleagues with 20 or 30 years experience warn they have never “seen the service in the state that it’s in” – and that “it’s not sustainable”.

While Mary believes her older colleagues “are only here because they feel they can’t go anywhere else” and are “just waiting for retirement age”, younger recruits are using their experience in probation “as a stepping stone” into other government departments, companies and charities.

“A lot are moving into the charity sector to do what they had intended to do in probation,” said Mary. “It’s very hard to do the therapies and rehabilitative work when you’ve got 65 people to do risk assessments, processes, you’re constantly in meetings with other professionals.”

Warning that “we are doing a disservice to people who really need rehabilitation”, she said: “We really are their first port of call to lead a positive life and get back on track. But because we can’t dedicate that time with them and have that one-to-one rapport building kind of relationship, they don’t get what they truly need. And then what happens? They end up back in the service, and the service is again under pressure. So it’s a revolving door.

“And in the meantime we have really big crimes ... and lives are lost unfortunately – we are responsible for a lot and not being able to do what we truly want to do has an impact, it has an impact on everybody.”

Meanwhile, the service is bracing itself to deal with more offenders in the community. In eleventh-hour plans to free up space in prisons, justice secretary Alex Chalk announced last month – with immediate effect – that inmates can now be released up to 18 days early, and is also seeking to ensure that many offenders with sentences of up to 12 months are spared jail.

But Mary plans to have left the probation service by the time the latter change comes into effect.

“I have given it everything I can and I don’t have anything more left for it. I never wanted it to come to this. This was a job for life. It was a service that I definitely believed in and purposely studied to be involved with – and I’ve been in it for less than 10 years, and I’m ready to leave it.”

--oo00oo--

The article generated this comment:-

I was in the probation service for just over 20 years, retiring in the late 90's, it was never this bad despite us undergoing massive changes back then. We did not like it when all our reports had to pass the scrutiny of a colleague, then a few years later we did not like it when they didn't! Change is not welcomed. The introduction of computers was largely experienced as more work not less.

My heart goes out to all the dedicated folk like Mary, who have had their working lives ruined by political leaders who have no real idea how the criminal justice system works and have largely destroyed it rather like they have many other social services and the health service.

But 6 weeks training!!!????? (presumably on the back of a relevant degree or is that followed by the 21 months?) I had 2 years training on the then 1+1 Home office course, the first as a student in studies and on placements and the second, doing the job with a protected case load. Interestingly my pay in my second year of training was higher than it had previously been as a Surgical Ward Sister. Nurses have never been well paid!

If you do not have knowledge of the 'coal face delivery' you should not be able to 'experiment' with new managerial ideas. You need to introduce new ideas that acknowledge real experience and accommodate new learning. Yes change has to be pushed but not by people who have no real understanding of what the job entails.

In particular this government's policies have adversely affected far too many people starting, with those that could be rehabilitated and more seriously the public who have not been adequately protected.

Report Highlights Structural Failings

Press release issued today:-

Independent serious further offence review of Damien Bendall

Background

Damien Bendall murdered Terri Harris (aged 35), John Paul Bennett (aged 13), Lacey Bennett (aged 11) and Connie Gent (aged 11). He also raped Lacey. These crimes took place in September 2021 in Killamarsh, Derbyshire. He pleaded guilty in December 2022 and was later sentenced to a whole-life prison term.

Bendall was on probation when he committed these offences. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice the Rt Hon Dominic Raab asked HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell to conduct an independent review into this case. This review was completed in January 2022 and can now be published following the completion of the criminal proceedings.

Statement

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell has made this statement:

“This was a deeply concerning case. The Probation Service’s assessment and management of Bendall at every stage, from initial court report to his supervision in the community, was of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required.

“Bendall had previously committed violent offences. His records show a former partner had made allegations of domestic abuse against him and a police child sexual exploitation unit had made enquiries about him with the Probation Service. Probation practitioners should take account of this sort of intelligence when assessing potential risks of serious harm. But this does not appear to have happened in this case.

“Bendall committed arson in May 2020. A member of the probation service’s court team interviewed him in June 2021 in order to prepare a report with sentencing options for the judge. The report author noted Bendall was suitable for a curfew requirement at the home of Terri Harris. They came to this wholly inappropriate conclusion without speaking to Ms Harris, visiting the property, conducting domestic abuse enquiries, or taking into account past domestic abuse claims.

“The court report author assessed Bendall as posing a medium risk of serious harm to the public and posing a low risk of serious harm to partners and children. We do not agree with this risk assessment; they under-estimated the risks Bendall posed and this had serious consequences.

“Probation managers and practitioners took the risk assessment from the court report as a given, and missed several opportunities to scrutinise and change it. If Bendall had been assessed as presenting a higher risk of serious harm – which would have been appropriate – it is unlikely a curfew order would have been deemed suitable and he would have been assigned to more experienced and confident probation officers.

“Instead, Bendall’s case was transferred to the East Midlands in the summer of 2021, and he was supervised by insufficiently qualified and experienced probation practitioners. The safety of Ms Harris and her children was not given due consideration. This was especially troubling as Bendall had started drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis again, which is likely to have increased the risk of serious harm.

“Probation services must strike the right balance between protecting the public and supporting individuals to move towards crime-free lives. Sadly, in this case, the balance was out of kilter.

“In January 2022, we published a separate thematic report on electronically monitored curfews which questioned why domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries are not mandatory before court ordered curfews. The Bendall case demonstrates clearly why these checks are so important.

“This review also highlights common issues that we have found in previous and recent inspections of probation services: the lack of qualified probation officers and managers with too many responsibilities to provide effective oversight for less experienced staff.

“The Probation Service must tackle these workforce issues. Probation practitioners must have the right knowledge, skills and experience to manage their assigned cases – and appropriate support and oversight from managers.

“We want to see probation practitioners and managers scrutinising case files and past criminal behaviour properly and developing a deeper understanding of the people they manage. We did not see enough ‘professional curiosity’ in this case – Bendall’s words and assertions were often taken at face value. Probation practitioners should be interrogating and verifying claims to build up a complete picture of the individual.

“As a result of this review, I made 17 recommendations for improvement to the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them. While this is welcome, over the past year in our local and national probation inspections we have continued to raise deep concerns about the quality of probation practice we find more generally in relation to the assessment and management of risk of harm. This is a subject I have raised repeated concerns about since becoming Chief Inspector. It is vital that this time lessons are learnt from this awful case.

--oo00oo--

Extracts from the full report:-

1. Foreword 

In September 2021, Damien Bendall was charged with the murders of Connie Gent (aged 11), Lacey Bennett (aged 11), John Paul Bennett (aged 13) and Terri Harris (aged 35), who was pregnant, and with raping Lacey. These shocking crimes have devastated families, friends, and the local community in Killamarsh, Derbyshire and beyond. In December 2022, the courts imposed a whole life sentence. 

Damien Bendall was on probation when he committed these crimes. The Probation Service typically conducts a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review when an individual on probation commits a serious violent or sexual offence. However, in this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked me, as Chief Inspector of Probation, to conduct an independent SFO review into the Probation Service’s management of Damien Bendall. 

This report sets out the findings of that independent review. My inspectors found that the Probation Service’s assessment and management of Mr Bendall at each stage of the process from initial court report to his supervision in the community were of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required. 

Vital information about the serious risks posed by Mr Bendall to those he lived with, and the public, was not included in the Probation Service’s report and recommendations to the judge when he was sentenced for an arson offence in June 2021. As a result, he was sentenced to an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. This was then compounded by a failure to allocate his case to an appropriately experienced and trained probation officer who could have managed him at the higher risk of serious harm level his past history certainly warranted. Several opportunities to correct these mistakes and amend his risk of harm classification and reallocate Mr Bendall’s supervision to an appropriate practitioner were missed in the period from June to September 2021. 

Inspectors found successive probation practitioners missed opportunities to ensure vital information known about Damien Bendall was included in assessments and plans to manage and address the risk of serious harm he posed to both women and children. Practitioners did not carry out safeguarding enquiries when he was sentenced for his most recent offence of arson. The impact of unmanageable workloads at both the probation practitioner and senior probation officer levels resulted in reduced oversight of new or struggling staff, frequent role changes and sickness absence. This made consistency and continuity of practice challenging. In this case, there was an increasing reliance on unqualified and trainee staff to manage workloads; this contributed to emerging factors linked to risk of harm not being recognised and escalated appropriately. 

This is a deeply concerning case that raises serious issues around the Probation Service’s assessment and management of risks of harm. This is a subject that has been of repeated concern to us in our local inspections and on which I have commented in my annual reports and in relation to other SFOs, 1 including that of Joseph McCann, 2 on which we reported in 2020. 

As a result of our findings, we make 17 recommendations for improvements to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice regarding safeguarding and risk assessment practice and procedures, which I expect the service to respond to as a matter of urgency. It is vital that key lessons are learned from this awful case. 

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Executive summary 

Inspectors found that, at every stage of probation involvement, from the pre-sentence report provided to the court on 08 June 2021 to the commission of the SFOs in September 2021, the Probation Service’s assessment and supervision of DB fell well below the necessary standard. A failure to assign the correct risk of harm level to DB (which should have been ‘high’ risk of serious harm given his past history) meant that the court was missing vital information when reaching its sentencing decision. It is possible that, had a holistic assessment been provided to court (including his pattern of offending against Asian men, use of callous and organised violence against prison staff, an analysis of previous noncompliance and the most recent high risk of serious harm assessments), an immediate, rather than suspended, prison sentence might have been imposed. 

As it was, the court imposed a suspended prison sentence, which included an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. The case was then allocated for community supervision to an inexperienced and inappropriate practitioner. 

There were then subsequent failures by supervising managers and new practitioners to adequately read the case and amend the initial, incorrect ‘medium risk of serious harm’ to ‘high risk of serious harm’. 

Had DB’s risk of serious harm to the public and children been correctly assessed as high, and had his risk of serious harm to partners been correctly assessed as medium, the court may not have curfewed him to an address with Ms Harris and her children. He would have been allocated to an experienced probation practitioner. This would have led to enforced weekly face-to-face appointments and improved communication with partner agencies, and assertions lacking evidence would not have been relied upon and repeated in future assessments. 

In sections 7 to 11 of this report, we analyse the management of DB during his two most recent sentences, the first a prison sentence with probation licence supervision imposed on 29 January 2017 and the second a suspended sentence order managed in the community imposed on 09 June 2021. In this summary we focus on our key lines of enquiry and summarise why, in our view, the following deficiencies occurred. 

Process for recommending curfew requirements 

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires that, ‘before making a relevant order imposing a curfew requirement, the court must obtain and consider information about the place proposed to be specified in the order (including information as to the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender)’. The current court process requires that court officers undertake domestic safeguarding enquiries ‘in order to assess risk of harm and suitability for sentencing options in all offences involving domestic abuse’,  which DB’s index offence did not. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation recently published a thematic inspection on electronic monitoring, including its use for curfews. In this report, we recommended that HMPPS: 

• mandate the requirement to make domestic abuse and safeguarding checks before recommending a sentence or release on electronically monitored curfew 

• work with the police and children’s social care at a national level to ensure that probation practitioners in every region are provided with domestic abuse and safeguarding checks in a timely manner.  

Before DB’s sentencing for arson, the court officer did not carry out domestic abuse enquiries on the address, find out whether Ms Harris’s children were known to children’s services or speak directly to Ms Harris to ensure she consented to her home being used as a curfew address by DB. The Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to have sight of this information before imposing a curfew order. However, it appears that courts do not have a mechanism to ensure this information is seen in every case. In this instance, important checks were not carried out and the court proceeded to issue a curfew order without them. 

Child safeguarding 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners in this case based their risk of harm assessments on whether DB had convictions against children or for domestic abuse, or if children’s services were involved with the family. These are highly relevant factors, but probation practitioners should delve deeper to explore the broader attitudes and behaviours of the person under supervision, including their impact on the children in their lives. DB did not have a history of offending against children. However, we found that insufficient consideration was given to whether his racist, manipulative and controlling attitudes and his violent and unpredictable behaviour would have a negative impact on the wellbeing and safety of children. 

We did not find evidence of sufficient professional curiosity about the nature and level of the role he played in the lives of the children of his partners. 

Intelligence was available to the Probation Service from Wiltshire police’s child sexual exploitation team regarding DB’s risk of serious sexual harm to girls. However, this information was not explored or recorded sufficiently to inform the risk of serious harm assessment and plans to keep children safe. 

The probation practitioner who prepared the court report following DB’s arson conviction took his account and version of events in relation to his offending and circumstances at face value. This included DB’s assertion that he played an important part in taking care of Lacey and John Paul Bennett. This information was not checked with their mother. There were no checks to find out if children’s services were currently working with the family or had previously done so. Most egregiously, the report stated that DB was ‘suitable’ for a curfew at Terri Harris’s address. When considering a curfew in the home of children, the attitudes of the people in that home8 and the best interests of the child should be given weight. 

At the start of the most recent order, in June 2021, there was again a failure to be professionally curious about the children living with DB. To probation practitioners, DB presented himself as a father figure to the children of Terri Harris and this was accepted without challenge. No contact was made with the children’s parents. When DB admitted to using drugs and alcohol this was not escalated to a manager and a children’s safeguarding referral was not completed. We found that the risk of serious harm to children was inaccurately assessed and seriously underestimated. 

It is our view that there should be a section of the offender assessment system (OASys) that solely considers the wellbeing and safety of the children – actual and potential – in the life of the person on probation. This would separate children from assessments of broader familial and intimate relationships, and specific prompts should be used to facilitate a more rigorous and defensible assessment of the impact on a child’s ability to thrive. 

Domestic abuse 

During previous orders, DB’s relationships with his mother and grandmother were not explored appropriately. Probation practitioners did not demonstrate sufficient professional curiosity, did not conduct safeguarding enquires, and took information from DB, again, at face value. 

Inspectors found that key information on risk from prison and from DB’s ex-partner and her current partner was not given due consideration and was not recorded appropriately. The impact of this failure was significant, as successive probation practitioners did not recognise that DB posed a risk of serious harm within relationships. 

Probation at court appeared to take DB’s word without verification. The author of the court report noted that a curfew would be ‘suitable’; they did this without undertaking safeguarding enquiries on the address or communicating with the owner/lead tenant of the property. This loophole in the mandated checks required before a curfew recommendation needs addressing urgently. 

Probation practitioners should have explored DB’s relationship with Ms Harris in greater depth, including whether he was coercively controlling her. DB was open about the fact that he had very limited income and that Ms Harris was paying for his accommodation, bills and food. Inspectors conclude that contact with Ms Harris by the Probation Service before sentencing, and at key assessment stages and when there was evidence of increasing risk, would have been appropriate.

Inspectors found that the risk of serious harm to known adults, including partners, was underestimated. There was no focus on safeguarding in this case and, as a result, DB was sentenced to an inappropriate curfew requirement that may have exacerbated the risk of harm to Ms Harris and her children. 

Fast delivery report 

The use of a short format report in this case, rather than a standard delivery report, was incorrect. Mr Bendall’s criminal history was complex and as such met the threshold for a suitable adjournment period to allow for a thorough read of his case to inform the completion of a more detailed report. This case met HMPPS’s own criteria for a standard delivery report as ‘additional assessment, professional discussion and multiple enquiries [were] required to aid risk assessment’ and ‘liaison where medical report [was] unavailable on the day’.

Senior probation officer workload 

Inspectors found that high workloads and staff shortages in the Swindon office impacted on the ability of probation practitioners to undertake high-quality work. Inspectors heard that this was a long-standing issue that they had experienced since the changes introduced with Transforming Rehabilitation. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation has often found that the span of line management control for senior probation officers (SPOs) is concerning. SPOs increasingly deal with complex staffing and human resources issues, for which some feel unequipped. This also reduces the time they have available to provide effective professional oversight of the work of the practitioners they line manage with individual cases. HM Inspectorate of Probation has previously found that SPOs do not have enough time to supervise all members of their teams to the standard they would wish, and when they do hold supervision sessions, there is often a focus on managing volumes of work rather than improving quality. This case highlighted this issue on two specific occasions. 

Firstly, there was insufficient oversight of a member of the probation court team, which led to a poor-quality fast delivery report being presented to the court. This was due to SPO sickness and a lack of resources to cover the absence. 

Secondly, SPO3, who managed the probation practitioner responsible for DB after sentencing from June 2021, was unable to engage with the case fully. SPO3 managed a large number of staff. She directly managed 16, but when covering for colleagues she had oversight of up to 30 PQiPs. This is far in excess of the line management span recommended by HMPPS, of 10 full-time equivalent posts for SPOs. This prevented her reading DB’s case at the allocation stage and from providing the necessary oversight. 

Inspectors found that the SPOs were also not given meaningful, regular and effective supervision and support. 

Professional qualification in probation and probation services officer training and oversight

The probation practitioners who managed DB from June to September 2021 were inexperienced, unqualified and had insufficient support to understand and recognise the risks and needs in the case. We conclude that they should not have been exposed to cases such as DB at this stage in their careers. Following the unification of probation services, new guidance on allocations has been published, and this is welcomed. This guidance sets out clearly that ‘some case allocation decisions will rely on the judgement of the operational manager to decide whether a case is suitable to be managed by a probation officer or a probation services officer (PSO). This decision will be based on individual circumstances of the case, and the skills, ability and experience of the individual officers.’ 

Inspectors heard concerns about the efficacy of online training, especially for key learning on domestic abuse and child safeguarding, from all grades of staff, not just professional qualification in probation (PQiP) and PSO staff. There had been an understandable reliance on this method during the period of Covid-19 restrictions; however, some staff noted that prior to the pandemic there had been a trend towards self-reliant e-learning and development. Practitioners said that such self-selective training and development suffered when staff spent their hours ‘firefighting’ with excessive caseloads. DB’s case was one of 10 being managed by a staff member who had yet to complete basic safeguarding training.

6. Recommendations 

We have directed the recommendations to HMMPS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure national learning. HMPPS should: 

Court work and curfew requirements 

1. ensure that domestic abuse enquiries are carried out on everyone sentenced so that accurate risk assessments can be made and safe proposals are made in court reports 

2. ensure that child safeguarding enquiries are made in all cases where the person being sentenced lives with, is responsible for, has access to, or is likely to have a negative impact on the wellbeing or safety of a child 

3. develop a mechanism and reliable processes with relevant agencies to allow sufficient safeguarding enquiries to be completed, to verify information and therefore reduce reliance on self-disclosure 

4. ensure that sufficient safeguarding enquiries with relevant agencies are always carried out before finding a curfew requirement suitable, and that policy/practice guidance clarifies that assessment of suitability post-sentence should be ongoing. 

5. quality-assure risk assessments and proposals to the courts for accuracy and suitability 

6. introduce a process to contact relevant adult residents of the proposed curfew address and obtain their prior consent to a curfew condition at their address to assess whether the address is suitable for an electronically monitored curfew 

7. ensure that court reports provide a sufficient analysis of the person’s circumstances, including analysis of risk of harm, to provide safe sentencing options. 

Child safeguarding 

8. include a specific section in OASys that is dedicated to assessing and planning for the safety of children, and ensure that the nature of contact and impact the person on probation has in the life of the child have been considered on both current and future children in the person’s life 

9. ensure that the impact on children’s safety and wellbeing is sufficiently considered in every case. 

Risk management plans 

10. ensure that probation practitioners contact partners, family or other key adults in the lives of the person under supervision to determine and discuss their inclusion in risk management plans. 

Training and support 

11. consider the suitability and efficacy of online training, particularly on domestic abuse, child safeguarding and other key training required to correctly assess and robustly manage risk of serious harm 

12. ensure that each PQiP has access to a mentor who has at least two years’ experience as a qualified probation practitioner. 

13. dedicate time for probation practitioners to engage in reflective discussions with colleagues and the line manager regarding cases. 

Allocation practice 

14. ensure that NDelius entries for ‘management oversight – allocation’ include evidence that the manager has considered the complexity of the case and the capabilities and capacity of the probation practitioner receiving the case. 

Oversight of SPOs 

15. review and monitor SPO workloads to ensure that sufficient line management and management oversight of case work can be provided effectively 

16. review the line management responsibilities and supervision of SPOs responsible for PQiPs to ensure the standard of PQiP management and oversight is appropriately robust, including the suitability of the cases allocated to them. 

Ministry of Justice should: 

17. amend legislation to be more prescriptive of the information that should be obtained and considered by the court, to assure themselves of the safety of other household members at a proposed curfew address before they impose an electronically monitored curfew. 

Until this can be actioned HMCTS should issue guidance to court staff requiring them to satisfy themselves that relevant checks have been undertaken by the probation courts team.

Opportunity Knocks For PSOs

What with all the covid stuff and lockdown, I must admit I don't remember this being initiated, but the MoJ have just published an evaluation report on the 'Probation services officer progression pilot' and it makes for interesting reading. I particularly note that 79% of the applicants were female; 43% were aged 40 and above and 44% had 6 or more years experience, but folks, there's lots more fascinating insights to be garnered from reading the whole thing.    

1. Executive summary 

This report presents findings from a process evaluation of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Probation Services Officer (PSO) Progression Pilot. The pilot tested an accelerated 13-month work-based training pathway for existing PSOs. It was open to PSOs in the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies. The pilot ran from January 2021 to March 2022 across four probation areas, forming two pilot regions. It was available to 50 eligible PSOs who had offender manager experience. PSOs both with, and without, an existing Level 5 (foundation degree or equivalent) qualification (referred to as ‘graduates’ and ‘non-graduates’, respectively) were eligible. Learners were required to undertake specific Level 5 and Level 6 academic modules, delivered by two higher education institutions. This was completed alongside the Vocational Diploma in Probation Practice Level 5. Those who successfully completed all elements were awarded the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) and were eligible to apply for probation officer posts. 

Before the creation of this new pathway, the only way to obtain the PQiP was through a 15 or 21-month training programme, depending on the amount of recognised prior learning held by the learner. This route is known as the ‘PQiP programme’ and is only open to applicants with a Level 5 qualification (‘graduates’). 

The process evaluation aimed to understand learner and probation stakeholder experiences of the pilot and capture any lessons learnt. 

1.1 Approach and interpreting findings 

A mixed methodology was used, combining qualitative and quantitative data collected between January 2021 and April 2022 from probation stakeholders. Probation stakeholders are defined in this study as senior probation officers, practice tutor assessors and probation learning managers. The report describes applicant and learner characteristics, and academic grades achieved by learners. Findings are also presented from applicant, learner, and probation stakeholder surveys, focus groups, and interviews. 

It is worth noting that the COVID-19 pandemic and related probation regimes affected pilot delivery, and consequently the experiences of learners and stakeholders. The pilot was also relatively small (50 places). Overall, a degree of care should be taken when interpreting findings as they may not be generalisable to other cohorts or contexts. For example, the selection process may differ for future cohorts, and there may be differences in the method of module delivery, workloads, and training provision across time or regions. 

1.2 Key findings 

Selection Process 

• Applicants reported general satisfaction with the selection process, acknowledging the opportunity for non-graduates and transparency of the process. However, respondents frequently commented on the lack of feedback on their applications. 

Pilot outcomes 

• There were 122 applications for 50 pilot places. Available data highlighted that almost half of the cohort did not hold a Level 5 qualification when they applied for the pilot (45%, n=55)1 or started the pilot (48%, n=24). The average (median) age of applicants, where known, was 38 years, with a range of 22 to 65. 

• Of the 50 learners who were offered a place on the pilot, 41 (82%) were known to have completed the programme.2 This includes 23 of the 26 who held a Level 5 qualification at the start of the pilot, and 18 of the 24 who did not. 

• Graduate and non-graduate learners achieved similar grades on average across the Level 5 and Level 6 academic modules of the progression pathway. 

What was perceived to work well? 

• Overall experience – most respondents to the learner surveys reported that they were satisfied with their overall experience of the pilot. The majority of respondents to the stakeholder survey said they had a positive experience of managing or assessing learners. Probation stakeholders were highly impressed with the capabilities of the pilot cohort, praising them for their dedication, motivation and perseverance through difficult times. 

• Academic component – most learners said they felt prepared for the Level 5 and Level 6 assessments. The quality of teaching and support from one of the higher education institutions was commended in particular; it was suggested that some tutors went above and beyond what was expected. 

• Vocational Diploma in Probation Practice Level 5 (VQ5) – experiences of the VQ5 were broadly positive, with several learners stating their previous experience as a PSO made it easier to meet the qualification requirements. Some learners identified receiving constructive feedback on their practice as the most useful aspect of the pilot. 

• Professional development – the majority of learners agreed that their caseload met their development needs, and most learners and stakeholders were confident that the pilot has prepared learners for the transition to qualified PO. Learners suggested that studying probation theory through the academic component of the pilot, and then applying that learning through the VQ5 and case management, helped to improve their practice. 

What was perceived to work less well? 

• Timescales – most learners and stakeholders expressed concerns about the compressed timescales of the pilot. There were challenges for learner wellbeing, particularly when learners were completing four or five Level 5 modules. A number of stakeholders also reported that they found the increased time pressure stressful. 

• Approach to module delivery – higher education institutions use varying degrees of distance learning during business as usual, however, some components which were previously face-to-face, were moved online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some learners in one of the pilot’s regions reported they were dissatisfied with the self-taught nature of the academic programme and perceived there to be a lack of support from tutors. 

• Workloads and caseloads – there were mixed views reported on the efficacy of learners co-working high risk or complex cases with an experience probation officer and reported challenges with redistributing learners’ PSO caseloads. Some learners felt their caseloads were too high or lacked development opportunities. 

• Training – overall it was felt that some of the training the learners were placed on as part of the pilot was unnecessary for experienced PSOs, and there were reported issues with the timing of the training events. 

• Preparation for progression – some learners identified specific gaps in their probation knowledge and skills following programme completion, and a small number expressed concern about moving into a PO role with these perceived gaps. 

1.3 Conclusion and Next steps 

Learners and stakeholders reported that the pilot offered a much-needed career progression opportunity for experienced and capable PSOs. Learners enjoyed furthering their professional development through academic study and exposure to more complex cases. Stakeholders expressed how rewarding they found it to manage and assess experienced learners. Both learners and stakeholders emphasised perceived issues with the shortened timescales. Completing the Level 5 modules in the timescales provided was highlighted as especially difficult for non-graduate learners and for those who had not studied academically for a long time. However, non-graduate learners achieved similar grades to those with a previous Level 5 qualification indicating that the pathway was successful in increasing accessibility for internal staff and non-graduates. 

Recommendations for how the design and delivery of the pilot could be improved are outlined at the end of this report. 

HMPPS have reflected on the findings from this evaluation and have subsequently developed a second iteration of the PSO progression pathway. This new route, which commenced in March 2022, was open to both graduate and non-graduate PSOs with and without offender manager experience across all probation regions. The timeline for the pathway was also extended from 13 months to 15 months.

Probation's Journey

The latest Academic Insight paper from HM Probation Inspectorate very succinctly charts the journey 'probation' has found itself on over recent time and how it might yet be restored to something worthwhile following the TR omnishambles, the pathetic justification for which still makes my blood boil. The following is the first of two lengthy extracts, but as always readers are encouraged to read the whole document.   

Professionalism in Probation

Foreword 

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth offending services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth offending services. 

This report was kindly produced by Dr Matt Tidmarsh, reviewing the literature on ‘professionalism’ and applying it to the probation service. After years of instability, the recent unification of the service provides an opportunity to refocus on the professional status of practitioners. It is vital that there is sufficient recruitment and that staff then benefit from ongoing investment, developing their professional knowledge, expertise and autonomy, so that they are able to deliver a high-quality service. At the same time, the history and culture of probation should be respected, embracing its identity as a relational, collaborative and person-centred service. Practitioners thus need to be empowered to develop positive relationships with people on probation and other key stakeholders. Within our inspections of probation services, we will continue to examine whether staff are being enabled to deliver a high-quality, personalised and responsive service for all people on probation. 

Dr Robin Moore 

Head of Research

2.1 Probation’s professional project 

McWilliams’s (1983, 1985, 1986, 1987) seminal quartet of essays on the professionalisation of probation comes closest to a ‘life history’ (Abbott, 1988) approach to the study of the service as a would-be profession. He documented how, over the first few decades of the twentieth century, the service came to exhibit ideal-typical professional traits. For example, after several decades of ad-hoc provision coordinated by the Church of England, the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 established probation as a public service with a clear mission, to ‘advise, assist, [and] befriend’ – words that constituted an ideology of service premised on relationships with those subject to supervision in the community. Religious influences on practice were gradually displaced by social work knowledge learnt through education and training, which proved the ‘scientific’ basis for autonomy over work delivered with people on probation. That McWilliams (1985, p.260) considered such knowledge, methods, and values the ‘justification for claims of professionalism’ hints at the importance of the acquisition of ideal-typical traits in shaping the service’s professional identity and legitimacy (Tidmarsh, 2022).

Probation’s ‘professional project’ (Larson, 1977) was consolidated in the postwar period, as the service was unequivocally recognised as a profession. The 1962 Morison Report, for example, recognised the probation officer as ‘a professional caseworker, employing in a specialized field, skill which he holds in common with other social workers’ (c.f. Jarvis, 1972, p.66). Given this institutional support, the service continued to expand: it assumed responsibilities for prisoners’ pre-release ‘throughcare’, post-release ‘aftercare’, and community service (Jarvis, 1972). Between 1951 and 1981, the number of full-time, qualified probation officers increased from just over 1,000 to nearly 5,500 while the service’s total caseload grew from 55,000 to approximately 157,000 (McWilliams, 1987). As such, imbued with state support for its knowledge, methods, and values, the probation officer was viewed as: 

‘an independent practitioner, supported and supervised in professional practice by the probation service hierarchy’ (May and Annison, 1998, p.161). 

However, the ideal-typical tenets on which probation’s claims to professionalism rested have, in recent decades, been subjected to considerable challenge. This has occurred against the backdrop of several significant changes, including a more punitive socio-political climate; the rise of risk management practices; and numerous, centralising organisational restructurings oriented towards greater efficiency and accountability. Heightened political and media hysteria over crime (Downes and Morgan, 2007) heralded the emergence of ‘tough on crime’ policies and a significant increase in the prison population (Garland, 2001). As political confidence in the service waned, successive governments targeted the autonomy of practitioners, chief officers, and locally administered services (Robinson et al., 2012). The convergence of performance targets and National Standards (introduced in 1988 and 1992, respectively) and monitored via an intensification of audits have thereby limited practitioners’ ability to exercise discretion (Mair and Burke, 2011). 

Following the growth in those subject to criminal justice supervision, in prison and in the community, risk management practices became entrenched within probation. Following the abolition of social work training requirements for practice in 1995, risk has arguably become the dominant knowledge-base within probation (Tidmarsh, 2021a). While evidence indicates that practitioners have welcomed the greater consistency provided by risk assessment tools such as the Offender Assessment System (Mair et al., 2006; Phillips, 2016), for their use promotes ‘defensible’ decision-making (Kemshall, 1998; see also Academic Insights paper 2021/14) in ways that are not ‘anti-professional’ (Robinson, 2003), pressures to record information have nevertheless detracted from the time available to spend with people on probation (Tidmarsh, 2021b).

Since the turn of the century, the service has undergone numerous restructurings which have sought to enhance central control over services – such that, for staff, organisational change has become ‘a defining characteristic of their professional existence’ (Robinson and Burnett 2007, p.332). And yet, despite changes which have attempted to bring organisational culture into line with prevailing punitive ideology (Robinson and Ugwudike, 2012), probation’s ideology of service has persevered. Mawby and Worrall (2013) have shown that several generations of probation staff are united through a shared value base centred on working with people. Indeed, research has consistently emphasised the durability of ‘probation values’ premised on a belief in the capacity of individuals to change (Deering, 2010; Robinson et al., 2016; Tidmarsh, 2020a). These values remain key to professionalism in probation, especially after the changes wrought by Transforming Rehabilitation.

2.2 Transforming Rehabilitation: the ‘diminution of the probation profession’ 

As argued above, ‘professionalism’ was integral to the justifications given for the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. This was primarily expressed in terms of professional discretion: top-down, bureaucratic state provision of services, it was contended, contributed to ineffective practice and the spiralling costs of justice, as practitioners were focused on meeting performance targets. Competing for services, by contrast, would spark the ‘innovation’ required to reduce reoffending and render probation more efficient (MoJ, 2010, 2013). The desire ‘to unlock… professionalism’ (MoJ, 2010, p.9) to improve performance thus sought to bring together the interests of diverse groups – the public, private providers, practitioners, and people on probation – with appeals to the superiority of the market over the state. 

However, Transforming Rehabilitation merely continued the decades-long challenge to the ideal-typical tenets on which professionalism in probation was grounded – such that, in her final report as Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacey lamented the ‘deplorable diminution of the probation profession’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a, p.3). For example, the manner in which staff were allocated after the reforms spoke to the Government’s view on professional knowledge, education, and training in the private sector (Tidmarsh, 2020b), with most qualified probation officers being shifted to the publicly-owned National Probation Service (NPS) – which was presented as a specialist body, ‘drawing on the expertise and experience of its staff… and managing those who pose the greatest risk of harm to the public’ (MoJ, 2013, p.4). Many experienced staff also left the service in protest at the reforms, leaving a much diminished ‘pool of collective professional knowledge’ (Kirton and Guillaume, 2019, p.12). That less qualified staff in the privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) were doing work formerly undertaken by qualified officers (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a) meant the boundaries between Probation Service Officer and Probation Officer roles were blurred, part of an attempt to render services more ‘efficient’ through cheaper labour (Tidmarsh, 2020b). As such, the NPS were perceived, by many in the service and the wider criminal justice infrastructure, as the superior organisation in a ‘two-tier’ system (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017). 

Relationships between staff and people on probation were not ‘sufficiently protected’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a, p.9) after services were split. Some staff in Robinson et al.’s (2016, p.167) ethnography of the transition to employment in a CRC reflected on ‘the pains of separation from service users with whom they had built good working relationships but who were now in the process of being transferred to the NPS’. Staff-client relationships were further exacerbated by the financial strains under which CRCs operated. Initial caseload estimates suggested that CRCs would supervise 80 per cent of people on probation, but the reality was closer to 60 per cent – in part because concerns over the CRCs’ quality of services meant fewer were assessed as low-to-medium risk (NAO, 2019). The subsequent funding shortfalls resulted in ‘substantial reductions’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a, p.74) in staffing in the CRCs. Accordingly, while organisational caseloads decreased, individual workloads increased (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017). One such implication is a loss of professional autonomy: practitioners in the CRCs were focused on meeting the ‘fee for service’ targets through which providers derived the majority of their income, reducing the time available to build relationships with people on probation (Tidmarsh, 2020b, 2021b).

Relationships with other organisations also deteriorated under Transforming Rehabilitation. HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2017) found that ‘Through the Gate’ provision was over-reliant on signposting to other agencies, particularly in the voluntary sector. Both the NPS and CRCs referred to such agencies, many of whom were external to supply chains, without being financially obligated to contribute to their delivery (NAO, 2019). This disincentivised many smaller voluntary organisations from involvement in probation while entrenching a ‘tick-box culture’ of monitoring (Clinks, 2018, p.24) among those that continued to deliver services, as downward pressures inhibited their ability to build meaningful relationships with clients and partners. The financial instability that characterised partnership working with the voluntary sector demonstrates how Transforming Rehabilitation damaged probation’s function as a ‘broker’ between different social spheres (Senior et al., 2016). Dominey (2019) conceptualises probation relationships through notions of ‘thick’ and ‘thin’ supervision: 

• ‘thick’ supervision refers to a productive relationship with the person on probation, embedded within the community 

• ‘thin’ supervision is predominantly office-based, with poor links to the community. 

Dominey concluded that, if probation is underpinned by networks of relationships, both among people and between people and organisations, then the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms pushed supervision in the CRCs ‘in the direction of thin supervision’ (Dominey, 2019, p.298; see also Tidmarsh, 2021b). 

The contractual pressures faced by CRCs thus created barriers to realising an ideology of service in probation. Indeed, the ability to build relationships – with clients and other stakeholders – is at the heart of probation staff understandings of professionalism (Tidmarsh, 2021a). However, both supervisor-client and probation-community relations were diminished nationally as a result of Transforming Rehabilitation (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a). The practitioners in Tidmarsh’s (2020a) ethnography of a CRC, for example, struggled to reconcile client-centred values with caseload pressures and a heightened focus on performance targets. These ‘thin’ practices also permeated intra-organisation relationships, thereby impacting practitioners’ capacity to develop professionally. Staff in Coley’s (2020, p.237) study of a CRC valued supervision time with Senior Probation Officers; however, the combination of caseload pressures and staff shortages meant that staff supervision time was often ‘compressed, offering less space for individual and personalised activities’. Likewise, in the NPS, Phillips et al. (2016) observed the ‘relentless’ emotional impact of working exclusively with high-risk offenders, for which practitioners did not receive enough organisational support or opportunities to reflect meaningfully on practice. 

As such, Transforming Rehabilitation further undermined the wide range of relationships on which professionalism in probation is founded. Professional knowledge was lost in the CRCs, eroded by an enforced contractual focus on targets. An ideology of service persists within probation, but the convergence of increased workloads and the financial consequences of a failure to conform to performance metrics impeded the autonomy to enact such values. The ways in which Transforming Rehabilitation failed to enhance professionalism in probation raises questions as to how the service can reclaim its ideology of service and the frameworks needed to recapture meaningful relationships with people on probation and other stakeholders. The next section, then, advocates for a relational, person-centred, and co-productive approach to the future of services.

to be continued

Reviews

I guess we've all learnt to take online reviews with a pinch of salt and especially if they are either totally glowing or condemnatory. An idle Google search brought up a selection of NPS employee reviews over recent time:- 

It's a great organisation

PSO Court officer. (Current Employee) - Crown Court. - 23 February 2021
I love the NPS, I have worked there for 20 years and can honestly say I have loved every day of it. The staff are great too, like minded people trying their best to do a good job. Pros Like minded people, friendly, helpful, good job prospects and security. Cons Can be stressful at times.

Waste of my life

Case Administration Officer (Former Employee) - East Midlands - 5 January 2021
I spent the best part of my working life, working for the National Probation Service. The NPS taught me professionalism, granted. But there is little to no room for progression. I genuinely do not know what they are looking for in an employee. The interview process in terms of PQIP/PSO is a joke, and completely disheartening. I was knocked back on a number of occasions. Since I left, after feeling completely worthless and questioning what is wrong with me, I have completed a Bachelors Degree with a first class grade, I won the vice chancellors award for academic excellence whilst at university and within 6 months in my new job role in the private sector, I was promoted to Deputy Area Manager. After 6 years of wondering what was wrong with me, it turns out it was them. Avoid, I did so much for the organisation, I covered every area that needed cover, and received nothing in return for my efforts.

Dreadful

PQIP (Former Employee) - London, Greater London - 16 November 2020
An absolute circus. Terrifyingly bad. Very little training, hectic, chaotic, prevalent blame culture and managers are consequently sneaky and snide. The service users are chaos and the "business" is worse. I take my hat off to anyone who can do the job of a PO or PSO for any length of time without becoming mentally ill or turning into a heartless box ticker. Pro - You are unlikely to ever be asked to leave as they are absolutely desperate for staff. Con - Any and all you can think of and more. Stay away.

Interesting place to work

Approved Premises Supervising Officer (Current Employee) - Norwich - 15 October 2020
In this workplace you get to do a job that really matters, to help people make better choices, and to do something about it when they don't. You get out as much as you put in with this one. The hours are long, but normally you'd work either a Mon to Fri pattern or 4 on 4 off (which is perfect). I'd recommend looking into some youtube videos of what residential workers and probation officers do before applying to see if you'd be interested. It's not the kind of job for everyone, you need to be a strong character yet empathetic. You also need to be sure of your own decisions as a lot of the time its up to you to make the call. in my experience it's best to document everything you see. Pros great pay for the work you do, interesting place to work, nice helpful staff. Cons long hours, high stress sometimes.

Fast-paced environment

Admin Assistant (Former Employee) - Rotherham, South Yorkshire - 11 June 2020
I undertook a temporary placement and unfortunately the IT equipment was not set up for the entire duration of my placement, which meant that I was unable to be as productive as I would have liked. However, the staff were lovely and unfortunately my grievance would be with the IT facilitator and higher management.

Fast paced but rewarding

Victim Liaison (Former Employee) - London Bridge - 23 March 2020
I enjoyed working for the National Probation Service when I started in 2003. There was a lot of training on offer and I felt that I was able to do my job well. Management changed regularly and did not always know the role we were doing as a team. Too many restructures.

Avoid at all costs

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Wales - 14 February 2020
Bully and harass management style. Toxic culture, excessive workload, lack of progression opportunities, total lack of consideration for employee welfare. Avoid at all costs.

Ok to work for

Receptionist (Former Employee) - Liverpool, Merseyside - 2 February 2020
Ok to work for, very stressful and target oriented, would look elsewhere after a few years as progression can be slow if you are looking at moving into management.

Under staffed

PSO (Current Employee) - St Albans, Hertfordshire - 24 January 2020
Unfortunately Probation have a very high turn over an staff are under paid, this in turn creates staff shortages. Case loads are too high, staff are consistently on sick leave due to stress and the general demands have become overwhelming.

Disappointed

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - Bracknell - 20 January 2020
The entire Criminal Justice System is in chaos and Probation is not an exception. Poor opportunities for advancement, a culture riddled with suspicion and lack of staff consultation.

Work place culture

Unpaid Work Supervisor (Former Employee) - Tyne and Wear - 9 January 2020
If you're not in the click you won’t go far. Most managers are having affairs with other colleagues. Not my type of situation. Wages are a good thing.

Working to deadlines, and targets can be challenging but is manageable with good time management and planning

ex-Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Walsall-Cannock - 4 December 2019
I enjoyed the work with offenders both with young people and adults. Managing their risk of harm and their risk of offending. Working with them on a one to one basis in order to change their offending behaviour and helping them to become law abiding citizens. Protecting the public and victims from harm.

Working in partnership with other professionals such as the police, the courts, prisons, Social Services, MAPPA. Writing court and prison reports, attending prison visits, to compile Pre sentence reports, parole reports, sentence planning. Completion of programme review. Completion of the OASYS.

Unimpressed

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) - St Helens - 13 December 2019
I felt very disconnected from upper management - they would make decisions based on an abstract view of the service, this would not translate well with staff on ground level.

Very bad gossip culture and poor management

PSO (Current Employee) - Wales - 11 December 2019
Worst place I've ever worked. Bullying culture and absent management. Very stressful and poorly paid and treated. Not appreciated by management who don't understand the pressures.

Awful place to work

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) - Durham, Durham - 26 November 2019
Unless you are desperate don't work at the NPS. No consideration for mental health, work loads are ridiculous, little training just completion of MANY books. No progression as a PSO, stuck in a dead end role!

Probation officer for years but wouldn’t work for them now

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Newcastle upon Tyne, - 5 November 2019
I was a very experienced probation officer when I left. The job had always been challenging at times but in recent years much less rewarding. It is now a very pressured environment in which to work where you will have a caseload of high risk offenders with no respite. You can expect to have a caseload well in excess of the workload management agreements. This is due, in part, to staff shortages. This has been caused by mismanagement causing staff sickness, problems with recruiting and retention. There is a culture of blame with little or no support from management. Your team are likely to be supportive as, unfortunately, you’ll all be in the same position; Overworked, overwhelmed and absolutely under valued. My advice is don’t go there.

Challenging role with not enough front line staff

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Luton - 22 October 2019
Rewarding job but with caseloads of 50-70 high risk cases there was not much time per week to make enough of a difference with each service user. I thoroughly enjoyed helping young people in particular before they commit to a life of crime.

PQIP Programme graduate intake

PQIP applicant (Former Employee) - North - 17 September 2019
Took days to get through to the advice/help centre on the telephone number provided, was also put through to wrong departments. Poor information and advice was given before attending an assessment centre, which meant that it was unclear as to what was actually being assessed on the day and how to prepare. One part of the assessment was a "group discussion" but quickly turned into a free for all with people talking over each other and repeating themselves. Requested feedback on my performance which was denied, and they then told me that they hoped this would help with further applications? Overall, unclear as to what was required of a candidate and what was actually being assessed. Pros Assessment staff were friendly on the day. Cons Poor communication, no feedback, no evidence of fair assessment.

All changed

Court/Payback Admin (Former Employee) - Huddersfield, W Yorks - 11 September 2019 

Worked there as it was being sold off. A lot of staff were shunted around to accommodate this. Overall some of the best people I have ever worked with doing a tough job. Understand it's better now.

Great colleagues, poor management

Case Administrator (Former Employee) - Guildford, Surrey - 28 August 2019
The gulf between employees and managers is ever increasing. Unfair workloads due to poor retention and employment of staff in a very expensive area, which leads to overworked employees who are undervalued.

Challenging workplace

PSO (Former Employee) - Brownhills, West Midlands - 22 August 2019
Very high case loads, stressful environment with high expectations. However rewarding. High staff sick leave due to stress. Difficult to progress. Supportive managers when it is needed.

Calling all target driven salesmen with a Criminology Degree

Offender Manager (Current Employee) - South Central - 30 July 2019
Under resourced and unrelentless pressure to hit targets regardless of how few staff there are. The introduction of laptops has meant targets in danger of being missed, can be hit by working out of hrs at home, for free. This organisation does not care for it's staff and as a result staff are resigning without jobs to go to, such is the burnout rate. Pros Supportive colleagues. Cons Target driven environment. Unrelenting pressure. Desk bound 85% or the time, appalling pay, lack of managerial support.

Good employer with a unique working environment

Divisional Hub Manager (Former Employee) - London - 6 June 2019
Good employer with a unique working environment. Very good managerial structure and support; opportunities for advancement; depending on the position, good work-life balance.

Depressing and oppressive

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Nottingham - 4 April 2019
Management is poor. No support. Many staff with poor mental health. No support properly given. Staff blamed for offender decisions. Staff sacked for offender decisions. Demoralizing workplace.

Great colleagues to work with

Probation Officer (Current Employee) - West London, Greater London - 15 January 2019
National Probation Service is a government agency run by the Ministry of Justice and manages offenders who pose a high risk of harm to society. People who work here are civil servants and are expected to follow the code of conduct.

A typical day at work consists is seeing service users and assisting them to manage and address problems in their lives. This can range from 1:1 work, referrals to programmes to initiating enforcement action. The work environment is pleasant and enables you to discuss complex cases with colleagues. The people who work in this industry have a caring nature and genuinely want to help those who are less advantaged.

I have acquired great skills in assessment and management of individuals with complex needs. I have developed collaborative working and established valuable links with external agencies, such as police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists etc. The company has recently undergone a technology upgrade and we can now work remotely, which assists with timely communication, work life balance and has improved my IT skills.

There is a culture in Probation that everyone just accepts changes, whether good or bad, and blame management for lack of representation at higher levels. Management are mainly concerned with targets and wellbeing is second. Encouragement for advancement is poor and there is no ongoing training. In my view, no merit is given for hard work and commitment, which is expected. Pros Annual leave entitlement is generous, job security, good pension scheme, recent technology upgrade, Sessional work (court, hostels) available to boost income. Cons Caseloads are high. You are required to work for long hours to ensure contact entries are up-to date, reports for external agencies completed, no training for advancement, salary scheme is poor and not in line with inflation. No bonus scheme.

Could do a lot better

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - London, Greater London - 1 October 2018
Quite dictatorial and pressurising but the money as a subcontractor is very good. However there is no opportunities for progression, most of the jobs are all internally organised and there is no official human resources service. Quite eye opening when you consider that the majority of the customer base are men and enlightening in terms of the rule of law. That said as a professional you are expected to be everything to everyone and the culture is very blaming when things don't go according to plan. Pros salary is good as a subcontractor. Cons dictatorial and often uncompromising culture.

National Probation

Administration Officer (Current Employee) - Worthing, West Sussex - 19 August 2018
Interesting, varied, constantly changing. Great staff - most dedicated and hardworking and want to make a difference. Split between private and public sector has been difficult.
Unfortunately now changing towards more impersonal, centralised, hot desking, non team, with emphasis on stats, which changes what has been a good culture and working environment. However, still interesting and worthwhile employment. Pros Interesting, varied, challenging, strong on diversity, great people, good degree of trust. Cons Always changing, can be demanding and stressful, wages not increasing.

Challenging but rewarding

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - London, Greater London - 18 July 2018
Typical day requires at least four cups of coffee. Learning constantly, especially about how deluded I must have been to decide to work with high risk ex-offenders. Management are fantastic, in particular they are rarely here to supervise which means I get to work at my own pace without having to worry about the crone on my shoulder. Workplace culture is exactly that, cultured and diverse. For example everyone has their own opinions, unanimously wrong however. Hardest part in all seriousness is arriving to work on time. Most enjoyable part is tough to decide between reaching 5pm or spending time there dreaming about a real career.

Interesting place to work

Probation Officer Assistant (Current Employee) - Chatham, Kent - 20 March 2018
The team are great to work for, however due the to low resources one finds they are battling all the time. The office is quite small, however individuals have made the best of things, ensuring that it is business as usual. Pros Local location Cons Very little security.

Pressurised environment

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - Portsmouth - 15 January 2018
Over the years the Service has changed dramatically. Particularly since the split in the service 3+ years ago with National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company trying to work together. Definitely not as an efficient Service as it was when NPS was overall in charge. Many targets not being met. Pros Good Colleagues Cons The split in the service not working.

Probation Command and Control Central - Latest

With perfect timing on the eve of the Napo virtual AGM starting today, here we have the October update from MoJ Command and Control central:- 

Probation Changes Bulletin - Issue 7

This bulletin provides an update to you, our stakeholders, on the progress of HM Prison & Probation Service’s probation reform, workforce and recovery programmes.

1. Introduction from Amy Rees, Director General of Probation and Wales

Welcome to the latest bulletin, reporting on key updates and progress across our three probation programmes – reform, workforce and recovery. You will read more from Jim Barton and Ian Barrow below.

As we move into the Autumn season, we have updated our recovery measures across England and Wales to be able to respond to the introduction of local restrictions. For the Probation System, we remain prepared and ready with delivery and contingency plans in place to enable our regions to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. It remains key that we balance our recovery with ongoing and changing requirements. Our focus, as always, is on the safety of our people – our staff, those under our supervision and the public.

As well as a high level of activity across our programmes, there is a real impetus across the probation system in general. You will no doubt have seen or heard the Lord Chancellor recently setting out the government’s proposals for changes to the sentencing and release framework in the new White Paper. This includes key considerations for probation work and community sentence management so we are thinking about what this will mean for our future design work and we will be closely monitoring how the paper progresses.

We have also had confirmation that Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has secured planning permission to open a new Approved Premises with 26 bed spaces in the South West of England. We are expecting the new site to be operational from the beginning of the next financial year. Our Approved Premises play a critical role in resettling offenders transitioning from prison to the community and this is part of our plan to expand capacity and improve security across our current Approved Premises estate, so that an extra 1,700 prison leavers will receive closer supervision each year.

Planning for the winter months and the possible scenarios we may face continues to be a major focus for us. We have learnt a great deal from the way we have responded to coronavirus

I hope you find this bulletin helpful and we look forward to updating you on the latest developments in the next issue.

2. Update from Jim Barton, SRO, Probation Reform Programme

Since our last update, the reform programme has continued adapting and updating our plans, following the changes to probation announced in June by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP. We remain on track for the safe and stable transition to the NPS by June 2021.

Our Design Authority Board has recently agreed to make changes to our future delivery in some important areas, namely court work, sentence management, in-house unpaid work and accredited programmes, the victim contact scheme and resettlement support for those on remand. We published an update document to explain some of the changes made to reflect the impact of Covid-19. The details of what the announcement document means are incorporated into the on-going design work for our proposed future model for probation services with the final Target Operating Model due to be published in February 2021.

Our Final Business Case, which sets out the required levels of investment needed in the probation services, is being submitted to HM Treasury in November.

Finally, over 200 organisations have now submitted a response to qualify for the Probation Services Dynamic Framework. Bids have been received in the first competition, for education, training and employment services and on 28 September we launched the second competition, for accommodation services.

3. Update from Ian Barrow, SRO, Workforce Programme

I am pleased to update you on the considerable progress that the Workforce Programme has been making, following the launch of our new Workforce Strategy on July 30.

One of our key priorities, as set out in the Strategy, is to create a more diverse workforce where everyone feels included and supported. As part of this commitment, we have been holding a series of virtual workshops with NPS and CRC staff to help us better understand the current issues and what measures we need to take to achieve this ambition. The results of these workshops will be used as part of the development of the first Probation Workforce Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, which we hope to launch early next year. The strategy aims to looking at ways to diversify entry routes, enhance qualification routes, improve staff experience, retention and career opportunities, and create schemes to advance under-represented groups into the probation workforce and senior leadership roles. We have been really excited by the level of interest and engagement so far!

In another key area, targeted at retaining talented people, we have also launched the Probation Service Officer (PSO) Progression Pilot. This Pilot gives experienced and able PSOs the opportunity to progress internally and qualify as a Probation Officer. It compresses the 21-month PQiP course into 13 months and is designed to allow those without a prior degree qualification to access the PQiP. This pilot is initially being trialed across the Eastern England, Kent, Surrey & Sussex, West and East Midlands regions.

These are just two examples of the work that we are doing as we implement our Workforce Strategy. We will continue to work closely with members of staff, probation leaders, trade unions, our key stakeholders and organisations as we develop and implement our plans.

4. Update from Ian Barrow, SRO, Recovery Programme

We continue to make good progress in our recovery work and are now moving through Step 3 of our Recovery Roadmap. We know that a tremendous amount of work is taking place across the probation system and we are extremely grateful for everyone’s contributions towards this.

We continue to review our exceptional delivery arrangements and are seeing steady increases in face to face appointments taking place; offices re-opening where it is safe to do so and in unpaid work delivery. We are now also able to re-commence programme delivery and so we are implementing an accredited programmes prioritisation framework.

Our approach to recovery remains that the health and safety of our staff, service users and the public is our primary priority. We continue to tailor what we do according to local circumstances, and we are supporting our probation regions in making the decisions which are right for them and what is happening in their areas. Where local lockdowns or additional restrictions are coming into effect, Regional Directors are ensuring they review their plans and make any changes necessary.

5. Hidden Heroes

On the 29th September, the Butler Trust in partnership with HMPPS organised Hidden Heroes Day to recognise and celebrate the outstanding work of our staff working in probation, prisons, courts, approved premises and youth justice every single day, particularly during this challenging time. Read more about #Hidden Heroes Day.

6. Stay in touch and have your say

We will be providing further updates as we continue to make progress this year. If you have any questions contact the reform programme team: strengthening.probation@justice.gov.uk

Sign up to receive updates on pages relating to Justice. 

--oo00oo--

No longer a Napo member, I will be happy to publish any observations from the 2 day event either anonymously or attributable - contact email on profile page - thanks.