Anger Is Mounting

Just in from a contributor:-

I have read the comments on here and feel that unless the mood is represented to the government yet again probation will take the blame. Where are the unions when needed certainly not working in our interest and probably not working. Always chuckle when I see the Probation Officer/NAPO chair at the bottom of an email, the NAPO bit why? It doesn’t get you any further or any more recognition, actually it is the badge of a shirker! 

The unions should be challenging the government asking for more money for the hard working operational PO’s. Should be having a ballot, taking strike action and let all the NPS lackeys manage the cases. Hmmm the majority couldn’t do an RMP let alone interview an offender, that is why they are up the greasy pole! Yet again we are playing probation Hokey Cokey, you put the training on, take the training off, on, off, on, off, you do the Hokey Cokey and turn around here’s an SFO!

There are limited AP places, AP’s are closing, there is no housing, you can have a tent, you cannot have UC unless you fill the application on line and it’s the summer holidays and half the probation workforce are on late starts and early finishes to pick the kids up from summer activities! Is that supervisor in possession of an up to date DBS? Successive governments have not built enough prison places, so when a police officer is killed there is not enough room at the inn because you are on EDS and not mandatory life because again the woke CJS does not want bad press.

I know what, if we knock all the very high and high riskers down to medium we can pass the case on to unqualified staff and they can take the SFO hit. Never I hear you cry, oh yes is my response you must tick the box or the SPO will throw their toys out of the pram because the PDU lead has blamed them and so it goes, sh*t only runs one way and who catches the lot?

It was a bad news day today so they announced a review of work descriptions, there will be no more money because the unions are involved bowing serf like to the bosses selling the membership out. 

Roll on Friday, laptop off until Monday, whatever happens over the weekend you don’t pay me enough to give a damn. In fact as a seasoned and experienced PO I miss the meeting the punter in the cafe for breakfast, popping to the building site for a brew, a leisurely home visit on a sunny day, that was when we had a professional, advise, assist and befriend, now its let’s do 15 months, get my degree and a DBS and off I go. 

There is no loyalty as loyalty works two ways and there is no respect, you have to earn respect and frankly I don’t respect those above me all they want is the targets met no matter how and no matter what the cost whether that be a mental breakdown or resignation. 

Happy Tuesday.

Anon

Dear Mr Jones,

We’ve all read your cry for help on behalf of probation. And yes, it must be heard. But I can’t help wondering, who exactly are you talking to? Because frontline probation officers don’t need reminding how bad things are, and the public doesn’t really know what we do. We live it every day, as do those in prison and on probation needing our support. What we don’t hear from you is where the buck actually stops.

And perhaps you find that hard to say, where that buck stops, since the top table of HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice changes hands quicker than a brown envelope in the back room of a casino, or a foil packet in a back alley.

Here’s the reality for probation: when you conclude there are “failings in public protection,” we get the blame. When you warn of “further serious failings without urgent reform,” we get the blame. When you say staff “don’t understand enough about risk,” we get the blame.

You cannot in one breath acknowledge the government’s repeated press release that probation is under immense pressure, “with hard-working staff burdened with high workloads,” and in the next follow the same approach implying those same officers should have done more. That contradiction and the consequences lands squarely on us, along with the endless actions, tick-boxes, briefings, and unpaid overtime that follow.

Your own reports already spell it out: probation is broken. Years of privatisation, de-privatisation, restructuring, pay freezes, devalued training, and haemorrhaging expertise have left the probation service in pieces. The role of the probation officer itself has been twisted to serve prisons and political headlines. At times, we play second fiddle to the police, social services, and charities. Some days, probation staff aren’t even sure what probation is meant to be anymore.

And yet, strangely, your reports still praise probation leadership. How is that possible when every probation region is rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement”? Leadership cannot be doing well if the service is collapsing on their watch. Name me one probation leader who has spoken out honestly about any of this, just one.

Meanwhile, on the frontline, caseloads of 40–80 people (many seen weekly) have become standard. We deal with bulk prison releases with no notice. Policy shifts without consultation. SFO reviews and HMIP inspections breathing down our necks. Professional registration and standards piling more weight on our backs. All of it with fewer staff, less time, insulting meagre pay “increases,” and not a single voice championing us.

We are tired. We’ve had the same conversations in staff rooms, with unions, on this blog, at the Probation Institute, with the Prison Reform Trust, even with your own inspectors, about probation pay, conditions, pressures, identity, recruitment, retention, discrimination, probation’s subservience to prisons, and the relentless scrutiny. A colleague in Preston was almost murdered, and still nothing changes.

Instead, we get the same political theatre: Gauke’s fag-packet sentencing notes. Timpson’s novelty rehabilitation speeches. Endless reviews that lead nowhere. Another Justice Secretary talking tough on punishment, tagging, and “public safety.”

The reality? Frontline probation will see none of the £700m “promised,” nor the benefit of the thousands of recruits that never arrive. And as every probation officer knows and will have told your inspectors from Northumberland to Newquay, what people actually need is housing, addiction support, access to healthcare and jobs. Tagging, political soundbites, sabre-rattling, and Ai solve none of that.

Working in probation today feels like a mix of an abusive relationship, Stockholm Syndrome, and a forgotten cold-war system. We’re told to do more with less. To patch up the failures of the entire Criminal Justice System. To JFDI and shoulder the problems and risks when things go wrong. All while our pay stagnates, our professional status collapses, our role evaporates, and literally nobody wants to hear our opinions when we probably hold the best solutions.

So yes, Mr Jones, probation needs urgent reform. But if you are truly crying for help, then cry about this, not at us, but for us. Probation officers deserve a voice unfiltered by inspections, politicians, or “leadership” spin. We know the realities, we carry the risks, and we’re the ones left to pick up the pieces when policy fails. If there is to be a cry for help, let it come from the people trying against all odds to do the job.

Anon (Probation Officer)

Advice for NQOs

Oh man, you have any idea how comforting it is that I found your blog. It just makes all my feelings (and my colleagues’) valid. Now here’s my situation and I would really appreciate some advice.

I qualified in December 2024 so only two months ago. Last couple of months of PQiP were overwhelming but I haven’t complained not even once during PQiP however I did take a full month of a/l as I really felt that I needed it. When I was about to come back to work, I had a death in the family and had to take another week off (unpaid) to deal with everything . Now keep in mind that I left on leave with 18 cases. When I came back, the next day I had a meeting with my new SPO who assured me that I will be protected the first months (gradual increase in cases and no HROSH allocations and constant support, especially given my personal circumstances). By the end of that week, I already had 33 cases in my name (some allocated while I was on a/l), 4 of them were HROSH, 3 co-working HROSH and some ROTLs and caretaking not even in my name - all within a WEEK! I literally can’t even look at my SPO no more as he literally lied to my face! I requested a supervision meeting and he just didn’t seem to take me seriously, reasoning that I am more than able to cope with it because I’m so good at what I do. He wanted me to take this as a compliment but I know it’s a “push” disguised as a compliment actually.

Oh, I forgot to mention that other NQOs from my cohort have many LROSH cases in their name and no HROSH, meanwhile I have 0 LROSH, only complex MROSH and HROSH.

I really love this job and I cannot believe that I already, so soon, got to the point where I want to quit. I feel like I have been lied to and the “business needs” are always a priority even before personal circumstances.

My question is: Will I still get my top up degree if I leave the service? Or should I wait and give notice only after I receive it? Will leaving 3 months after qualifying impact my status as an NQO? Assuming that at some point (if things get better) I will return?

I’d really appreciate some advice :) Thanks in advance!

--oo00oo--

Being good at your job or being gaslit to convince that you are is something probation does a lot of. As an NQO your caseload should be protected and it should be a mixture of cases up to certain B-2 level. Nothing above unless it's a co-work (even though you do most of the work).

If you're qualified then 'the board' that certifies you means that your degree is intact. I would look for other work if it's getting too much or have another conversation with your SPO. It's probation shooting itself in the foot with a lack of PDU culture uniformity. In other words, if you don't get on with the culture or you don't feel supported or you feel others are being treated better, you'll leave. 

At least they got rid of the 8-10,000 word dissertation to send most people over the edge at the end of their PQIP. I was bullied through much of mine and given cases as PQIP out of spite and because of low staffing levels, including a very dangerous rapist. I went to MAPPA without much training and was expected to carry out Maps for Change, even though a PQIP isn't supposed to have contact sex offence cases. I had 8 professional discussions, but I got through it. 

They exploit the fact that you're new, that you don't want to upset the apple cart and not have a reputation as someone negative or unable to handle it. They also exploit good staff as many organisations do, whilst the not so good manage to coast. Protect your health and your work/life balance - these are your priorities, not Probation's who are target driven to the impossible whilst still Jedi mind tricking you that you're great. 

It's all ok until an SFO turns up. Juggling so many plates with complex cases, it's bound to happen. It's not how you approach the work, but the workload itself. Probation emphasise the opposite and put the responsibility on you. You haven't been there long enough to find your lane. Don't volunteer for cases and downplay the 'I love the job' angle. 

For a supposedly compassionate end of the criminal justice system, it can be very toxic indeed with SPOs being absent of empathy whilst reminding you to have them for the POPs. 6 years in and it's a daily negotiation. Look elsewhere for something more befitting you. Don't leave until you have another job and when you look back on it, the training will have some value for anything you chose to do next. Good luck.

--oo00oo--

Don't burn any bridges get through your academic and any practice reviews to consolidate the training outcome. Don't give practice managers any reason to block your end certification remember it's also a practice based qualification not just the training period. Soon as your sorted, resign go to a different area where possible Good luck.

Probation News

This recently announced by HM Chief Inspector of Probation:-

National Inspection announcement

Today we are announcing a national probation inspection, covering England and Wales, and reviewing the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively.

National arrangements for service delivery have a crucial role in enabling effective outcomes in frontline probation work. We see some of the impact of this activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but they do not give us a full picture.

It is clear we are unlikely to see any significant improvement in our core programme of PDU inspections in the short term. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow recent changes, including the implementation of SDS40 and Probation Reset, to embed.

By taking some time ahead of our next regional inspection programme to carry out a national inspection, we will be able to gather a comprehensive overview of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services. This will allow us to make recommendations to drive improvement and target them where we believe they can have the most impact.

Fieldwork for our national inspection will begin later this month and we look forward to sharing the results in the spring. Our inspection standards have also been designed to allow us to carry out further national inspections in the future, where we think there is a need to do so.

--oo00oo--

Then we have this Press release:-

Inspectorate flags concerns as number of SFO reviews meeting required standards continues to decline

HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its third annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, highlighting a decline in the number of reviews completed to the expected standard for the second year running.

The Inspectorate’s SFO inspectors quality assured 87 SFO reviews this year, rating 46 per cent as ‘Good’, but 52 per cent as ‘Requires improvement’, emphasising the need for SFO teams to be sufficiently resourced and experienced, for more effective management oversight, and for improved centralised training.

The report also highlighted the backlog of SFO reviews due in many regions – causing delays in the probation service identifying and implementing the required learning, and in sharing findings with victims and their families.

Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, said: “The probation service manages a large and complex caseload in the community. By its very nature, risk is inherent in that work and can never be eliminated. Against that backdrop, the number of SFOs committed each year remain low as a proportion of the overall workload, but the impact of serious further offences on victims and their families cannot be underestimated, and they are an important opportunity for learning. So, it is disappointing we have continued to see a reduction in the number of SFO reviews that meet the required standard. More work is needed to develop and support reviewing managers, alongside more transparency and the sharing of high-quality data and effective practice across regions to support a collective developmental approach.”

For the first time, this year’s annual report also sought reflections from probation staff on their experiences of the SFO review process, and their experiences of the organisational culture linked to SFO reviews.

This raised recurring concerns about the SFO review policy framework, how it is applied, and its outcomes and impact. There was also feedback that the level of support provided to those involved in SFO reviews needs to be improved, with respondents concerned about a ‘culture of blame’ existing within HMPPS. Staff reported they often felt individual accountability was attributed to them, with a failure to acknowledge and address wider and procedural systemic issues.

Last year’s SFO annual report made seven recommendations to HMPPS, which focused on the quality of SFO reviews, the associated action planning, and the embedding of learning. Concerningly, little progress has been made against these recommendations and, as a result, this year they are repeated, alongside a further four recommendations to support the improvements the Inspectorate’s quality assurance activity and staff engagement show are required.

Mr Jones added: “The SFO review process should be utilised as a constructive learning opportunity, yet with backlogs, delays in communicating with victims, and the difficult experiences described by those involved, the necessary learning culture is not being achieved. Improvements must be put in place moving forward.”

--oo00oo--

Still no sign of the promised 'Probation Review' from the new government, although just like the last government, they seem keen on adding to prison capacity problems by increasing sentences and of course have doubled the length of custody Magistrates can impose. 

I guess we ought to mention this, but to be honest holding consultations over Christmas and New Year is pretty daft, unless of course you're not really serious about it:- 

The Justice Committee is today (Tuesday, 26 November) launching its first new inquiry of the Parliament entitled ‘Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending’.

Inquiry: Rehabilitation and resettlement: ending the cycle of reoffending
Submit evidence here

MPs on the newly appointed cross-party Committee, chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter, will examine the levels of reoffending in England and Wales. They will look in detail at the rehabilitative regimes offered across training and resettlement prisons within the male and female prison estate, including for remand prisoners, IPP prisoners and those in youth custody.

The inquiry comes as latest Ministry of Justice data covering October to December 2022 showed the overall proven reoffending rate was 26.4%, with adults released from custodial sentences of less than 12 months having a proven reoffending rate of 56.6%. For the year ending December 2023, 78% of all offenders cautioned or convicted for an indictable offence in 2023 had at least one prior caution or conviction.

The HM Inspector of Prisons annual report for 2023-24 raised concerns over the length of time inmates were spending in their cells, with 30 out of 32 inspections rated poor or insufficiently good for purposeful activity.

Chair comment

Justice Committee Chair Andy Slaughter MP said: “Prisons and the Probation Service are facing significant and unsustainable pressures. The Justice Committee’s first inquiry will focus in detail on how to break the cycle of reoffending we are witnessing across our justice system.

“We will examine reoffending rates in England and Wales and assess the current rehabilitation regimes offered within different types of prisons, including training, education and purposeful activity.

“The inquiry will also measure the adequacy of support provided to ex-offenders on release including homelessness prevention, employment opportunities and health and wellbeing services, as well as the role of non-custodial sentences in promoting rehabilitation amid the Sentencing Review.

“With limited opportunities for ex-offenders to reintegrate back into society post release and a rise in the numbers leaving jails homeless, a wide-ranging assessment of the prison revolving door is long overdue. The Committee will listen carefully to those across the sector and make evidence-based recommendations to Ministers to shift the dial on this crucial issue.”

Terms of reference for the call for evidence

The Committee invites written submissions through the inquiry website addressing any or all of the issues raised in the following terms of reference by January 10, 2025.

Fancy Being a Probation Officer? 4

Remember when initial allocation of a case was followed by a groan, then to be informed “they are in custody” - gave a sigh of relief and respite. However, under the ever-changing ECSL tectonic plates, release dates of prisoners now calculated in something akin to an FA Cup draw or ‘Wheel of Fortune’ format, rather than being something planned and embedded. The pressures and chaos this creates, along with an already substantial and sustained level of change, is leaving staff utterly bewildered. I am now of the opinion that if a custody case is allocated it will now be met with a groan.

****
As much as early release of prisoners will cause significant problems for probation, probation itself is part of the problem. There are many thousands in prison on recall, not because they have re-offended, but for non compliance. It's penal ping pong. Prisons release and probation recall. Prisons are full because there's too many routes into them. Is there really any need to have everyone leaving prison subjected to at least 12mths probation supervision?

****

With all this going on we’ve been told we must fill in weekly timesheets to explain our hours. Our SPO then told us from Monday she’s coming into the office 5 days a week “to model it to you all”. Not sure what’s going to be modelled. This SPO sits in her office with the door closed firing off emails and gossiping to her cronies all day. Ask her about a case she’s like a cat caught in the headlights.

****

If we are all due to be called back into the office five days a week, watch the sickness rates increase exponentially! Flexible working prior to Covid was a joke and you needed a letter from your mam and the local priest to be granted a work from home day. We also do not have the infrastructure for it. They have changed most if not all offices to only hold 60% of the work force in the buildings.

****
I’ve just received a call from my SPO. They are releasing a very high risk case on 2nd April and apparently there’s lot more of them. POP is on a standard recall but his sentence is less that 12 months custody so those cases are all being altered to fixed term recalls and being released, regardless of risk or MAPPA. Ive asked if this was national and he said he was but this is the first I’ve heard about it. I’ve been told not to share this with my colleagues because the legislation is not yet finalised. They also don’t want all staff seeing the list of names on there and they said this is because it’s confidential data but they don’t normally have a problem when we can see each others POP’s names on PP Dashboard, daily performance reports or when we need to cover another PP’s case on delius. Maybe they don’t want my colleagues to see the list for other reasons.

****

"I’ve been told not to share this with my colleagues because the legislation is not yet finalised. They also don’t want all staff seeing the list of names on there and they said this is because it’s confidential". This is an absolute shitshow. Back awhile the term Omnishambles was coined. This is on a whole new level: Omnishambles on Amphet. Ministry: doing what exactly? Doubling down on failed strategy. Ministers presumably hiding under their temporary desks,
Civil Service: doubling down on failed strategy and waiting for eviction of Ministers, so they can advise the New Boss to be Just Like the Old Boss.

Professional Leadership 1 HMPPS: that leader is a prisons leader. Number one priority get some space in the prisons, probation - whatever that is - will have to cope

Professional Leadership 2 Probation: (where is the Chief?) No idea

Local Management: Fractured coms, headless chickens, rabbits in headlights

Frontline: not enough staff, and being churned out of training into the frontline on a wing and a prayer.

...in the trenches, at all levels actually, good decent people are trying to get the best done for people, living and breathing human beings who should be entitled to a competent service. In every place, a knackered stressed person coming out of prison is faced with a knackered stressed person in a probation office and neither of them have much options. Omnishambles squared.

****

I am more than qualified for PQiP - at level 7 already - but I won't make that transition from PSO because of what I read about from current NQO's and RQO's, who criticise the excessive caseload, stress that creates due to the extra free time put in to meet deadlines - and there is the fear of SFO's which is more likely to come from a PO caseload than a PSO's. What is the point of working hours free of charge only to paid per hour the equivalent of a much less stressed specialist PSO?

****
The academic side of the PQIP is somewhat easier now the 8,000 word dissertation requirement has been removed. Caseloads are not in the mid-20s/30s before qualifying because of the high profile tragic and horrific cases that have caused Probation to reflect rather than the daft conceit of piling work on as a trainee in preparation for the high caseload to come. This never tackles the caseload, but further puts the emphasis on the NQO/PQIP- this is a 'get out of jail free' card for Probation to continue to culturally emphasise that it's the NQO's fault of how they manage cases not the caseload itself. PQiPs don't have to do duty if they're doing a PAROM - when the kitchen sink was thrown at me when I did my training. But will they be prepared to undertake high risk on their own without co-working? 

Cases all start with proper work made in the courts or prisons with meaningful work to prepare them for community testing - not the attitude that most offenders have when they believe that when they leave prison that's the 'end of their sentence'. Much more has to be done at the Court or prison end of the system so as to make the COM's job just slightly less arduous. In addition, cases are often more or not a success if the allocation is made as well as it can be. This comes from risk literacy and making sure that an NQO doesn't have a case of abiding magnitude that they feel overwhelmed and this may turn into an SFO.

****
The ads for the job are basically lies. A lot of the trainees that join would make brilliant probation officers. But they’ve been lied to, they’re disillusioned, and they want a better working life. Nobody can blame them for that. They may lack life experience, but they don’t lack intelligence. They value themselves. The younger generation would rather walk out of a job that makes them unhappy, and find jobs that pay less, if it means they’re happy, and not burned out every moment of every day. I respect them for that. They’re being honest with themselves. They’re valuing their worth and their mental health.

Maybe it’s not the trainees that should be criticised, but the recruiters. Recruiters know how pressurised the job is. The high staff turnover is a clear indication of that. Recruiting for numbers doesn’t work. There needs to be a re-examination of the recruitment process. Having hundreds of people join only to have hundreds of people leave again is a waste of time and resources. All it does is add to the pressure the existing staff are already under. It’s an optical illusion so the powers-that-be can say they’re recruiting X number of people to help ease the pressure, when in reality they’re just making it worse, through being dishonest about the leave-rate. Criticise the right people, and not those who try.

****

I qualified 18 months ago and have never felt so undervalued in a job. My WMT is 175% and my anxiety is through the roof for fear of an SFO. I do not feel supported. I cannot manage risk when I do not have the time to spend with the people I manage. I'm ready to quit.

Another Graphic Illustration of Failings

With quite astonishing testimony coming in on the state of probation, including cocaine use and 90% of the job being work on the laptop, one cannot escape the conclusion that fundamental restructuring cannot be far off. As the latest SFO review from the new HM Chief Inspector confirms, the present state of affairs is untenable. Here's the press release:-  

Independent serious further offence review of Joshua Jacques

Background:

On 25 April 2022 police forced entry to a property in Bermondsey, London, where the bodies of Denton Burke (aged 68), Dolet Hill (aged 64), Tanysha (Raquel) Ofori-Akuffo (aged 45), and Samantha Drummonds (aged 27) were found. All four victims had suffered stab wounds and lacerations. Joshua Jacques was charged with these murders.

In June 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to undertake an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques, as he was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences. This review was completed in November 2022 and can now be published following the completion of criminal proceedings.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE stated:

“There were serious failings in the supervision of Joshua Jacques. Despite concerns about repeated non-compliance with his licence conditions, enforcement practice was inconsistent and opportunities to recall Jacques to custody were missed.

“Joshua Jacques was incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before being assigned the case. Under guidelines by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Jacques should have been allocated to an experienced, qualified probation officer. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case. The management oversight of the probation practitioners involved in this case was also insufficient. Probation staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight.

“There was a lack of professional curiosity in all areas of probation practice in this case. This meant several events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship, and the unpermitted use of social media, were not responded to or explored sufficiently.

“Joshua Jacques was appropriately assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public prior to his release from custody. However, his risk in other categories, including to staff or potential partners was underestimated. No risk assessment was completed for Jacques following his release which resulted in no risk management plan or sentence plan in the community being completed.

“Probation practitioners were aware of Jacques’ mental health history, including that he had been sectioned in 2018 and that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable. Jacques had also reported that random aggression could be a symptom of declining mental health. In February 2022, Jacques disclosed to probation court staff that he was experiencing a decline in his mental health; however, no action was taken. Inspectors found during this review that probation staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available to them.

“The case records show that Jacques was routinely using cannabis whilst on probation, and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. No such intervention was organised by the Probation Service and our inspection found no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency.

“Sadly, this case is symptomatic of the issues we have observed across the probation service in recent years. A reliance on an inexperienced cohort of probation staff, a lack of support for mental health and substance misuse issues alongside insufficient management oversight are concerns which have been highlighted repeatedly. As a result of this review, eight recommendations were made to HMPPS. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them.”

The following extracts are from the full report and although lengthy, give a graphic illustration of the fundamental flaws in how the probation service as simply not fit for purpose as part of HMPPS and under civil service control.  

1. Foreword 

In April 2022, Joshua Jacques was charged with the murders of a family of four: Denton Burke, Dolet Hill, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, and Samantha Drummonds. On 21 December 2023 he was found guilty of murder following trial. 

Joshua Jacques was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences, having been released from prison on licence in November 2021. Ordinarily, the Probation Service would conduct a review of the management of the case, in the form of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review. In this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Inspectorate of Probation to complete an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques. 

The impact of these shocking crimes cannot be underestimated and will have had a profound impact on their family and the wider community. We offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences and recognise that the family need information about how Joshua Jacques was supervised in the community and answers as to whether there were failings in this practice.

This report presents the findings of our independent review and sets out that the practice in this case fell below the expected standards. 

As a result of recent recruitment drives and of experienced staff leaving the Probation Service, many probation teams now have large numbers of newly qualified officers (NQO) or recently qualified officers. In the Southwark Probation Delivery Unit (PDU), this situation impacted on the level of experience in the teams available to manage high risk and complex cases, something our core inspections have also routinely found. 

We found Joshua Jacques’ case was incorrectly allocated to an NQO, and the lack of good quality management oversight of this member of staff impacted on the quality of decisions made. There was a notable absence of professional curiosity1 across all areas of probation practice from court through to sentence management, and a failure of the probation practitioners overseeing the case and their manager to meet fully their expected responsibilities. As a result, several significant events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship and use of social media when not permitted to do so, were not responded to sufficiently. 

While appropriate referrals were made to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and to Approved Premises (AP) by the probation practitioner, these critical elements of increased supervision did not fulfil their potential in supporting the management of risk of serious harm posed by Joshua Jacques. An initial OASys assessment was not completed upon his release, which meant that his management in the community was not supported by a robust risk management plan, nor a sentence plan to inform his supervision on licence. The pace and level of engagement of Joshua Jacques with his licence was seemingly determined by him, rather than the probation practitioners, who viewed his engagement and progress too optimistically.

There were concerns Joshua Jacques was not complying with the conditions of his licence and, though this happened repeatedly, they were each dealt with in isolation. Practitioners did not see the bigger picture and missed opportunities to respond sufficiently to his concerning behaviours, for example through a recall to prison. 

Many of the findings of this review mirror those of our thematic and regional probation inspections. This review makes eight recommendations to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which we require implementation of as a matter of urgency to ensure learning is implemented quickly and nationally, not just in the PDU where this case was supervised.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Summary of Key findings 

JJ’s supervision was characterised by several practice deficits and missed opportunities which impacted on how JJ was managed on licence. Nine key themes identified from the independent review are outlined below. 

Risk of serious harm assessment 

In custody, two OASys assessments were completed which concluded that JJ posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, specifically identifying the public to be drug users and peers operating in drug supply. This was an appropriate assessment, however it failed to identify all factors that were linked to the risk of serious harm such as his mental health, substance misuse and current accommodation. JJ was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm in all other categories, which was an underestimation of the level of risk he posed. 

An initial OASys assessment was commenced upon release, however, this was never fully completed and remained an incomplete document. This was poor practice and was not in line with organisational expectations. 

The failure to complete an OASys assessment on release resulted in no assessment of risk of serious harm and no risk management plan in the community to inform how the risk posed should be safely managed while on licence. Additionally, there were no sentence plan objectives to support and inform the supervision appointments, which should have been targeted to address those factors most likely to contribute towards further offending. Further reviewing did not take place following MAPPA meetings, nor in response to changes of circumstances and significant events. Completing a review would have enabled the probation practitioner to consider the significance of new information, and review the sentence and risk management plans accordingly, to ensure the necessary arrangements were in place to protect the public. 

The pre-sentence report prepared for court, and the OASys completed following sentence to the suspended sentence order, both replicated the pre-release assessment and did not take the opportunity to consider all available information to support an updated and holistic assessment. 

MAPPA meetings considered the level of risk of serious harm posed by JJ; however, this did not negate the need for an OASys assessment to be completed. This is essential probation practice to ensure that the management of each case is supported by a robust and defensible assessment of risk of serious harm and need. In the absence of a formal assessment using the OASys tool, inspectors would have expected to see other evidence of assessment and planning within case management records. However, there were no such records to satisfy us that a clear understanding of how to manage the risks posed were in place. 

Professional curiosity and optimism bias 

PO1 and PO2 put a strong focus on addressing JJ’s needs, such as accommodation and employment. Though these were important factors and progress was made, the supervision sessions were not underpinned by a sentence plan and there was no evidence of interventions which focused on offender behaviour being delivered. Inspectors found that this strong emphasis on relationship building and addressing JJ’s needs was not balanced against the need to manage risk of serious harm. 

Probation practitioners viewed JJ’s behaviour on licence through an over optimistic lens and did not fully understand the expectations on them to be professionally curious and proactive. As a result, they did not adequately explore issues such as why he had purchased a vehicle, or his problematic behaviour in his accommodation and they failed to inform police of a second breach of the criminal behaviour order (CBO). 

These skills of professional curiosity grow and develop with practitioner confidence and experience, and with the effective support and oversight from peers and managers. There was a lack of experience within the probation practitioner staff group at Southwark PDU and lack of robust management oversight further contributed to this. Where a workforce has limited experience, they need guidance from those with a more established level of knowledge to provide support and oversight to aid their development. 

Enforcement 

Good probation practice seeks to motivate people on probation to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. While this should include a focus on desistance from further offending, it should also include appropriate enforcement action being taken when required. Instances of non-compliance should be responded to in a proportionate, fair, and transparent manner.

Enforcement practice in this case was inconsistent, with instances of non-compliance considered in isolation rather than seen in the round. Opportunities to escalate and consult with the delivery unit head (HOS1) were not sought. There was a failure to act upon a pre-release assessment that identified that swift enforcement of the CBO and licence were required to manage the risk of serious harm posed by JJ. Enforcement guidance issued in October 2021 was not followed. Our inspectors felt the decision not to recall JJ following his arrest for further offences was defensible. However, in making the decision, senior manager oversight should have been sought by SPO1 and the failure to do so was against expected practice. The enforcement practice in this case did not analyse the behaviour being displayed by JJ, nor did it explore whether additional supportive or restrictive measures short of recall were needed to manage his licence. 

Resourcing and workload 

Southwark PDU had been operating under ‘green’ status under the national prioritising probation framework but had several vacancies, particularly at probation officer and probation service officer grade. Many staff within the PDU were at early stages of their career and there were limited numbers of experienced staff available. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case and behaviours being presented. In addition, the pace and volume of work impacted on the quality of work undertaken in this case. 

HMPPS’s Tiering framework and case allocation guidance was not followed, and JJ’s case should have been allocated to a more experienced probation practitioner. The allocated probation practitioner in this case was within their newly qualified probation officer (NQO) period and in allocating the case, the SPO should have been assured that PO1 had the required knowledge, skill, and experience to manage the case effectively. JJ’s tier increased following the initial MAPPA meeting and this should have prompted re-allocation of practitioner in line with the expected practice for NQOs. 

Management oversight 

Management oversight was of an insufficient standard. Staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight. When sought, decisions made by the probation practitioners would generally be approved without the necessary discussion or scrutiny needed to ensure that the most appropriate course of action was being taken. Opportunities to escalate to HOS1 were also missed. 

Similar to the findings from the Inspectorate’s broader local inspection programme, the workload, and responsibilities of line managers in this Probation Delivery Unit were found to be concerning. SPOs were managing large teams and were expected to provide support and oversight of their staff and manage human resource issues, as well as provide oversight and scrutiny of each probation practitioner’s caseload. SPOs also have additional lead responsibilities, such as MAPPA, which impact on their ability to perform their role to the expected standards. 

Inspectors also found insufficient processes in place to manage staff absence. PO1 was absent from work for a period of three months. While during this time PO2 had maintained contact with JJ on their own initiative, the process for caseload reallocation during an absence was not clear, which resulted in a lack of clear ownership of this case and many of PO1’s other cases during this period. 

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 

JJ’s index offence (the last set of criminal actions that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system) meant that he was not automatically eligible for management under multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Therefore, it was good practice for JJ to have been referred to MAPPA as a Level 2, Category 3 case. However, there was insufficient evidence that this MAPPA referral positively impacted upon the management of the case. 

The MAPPA referral for JJ was completed late, only one month prior to release. To allow effective coordination this should have been done six months prior. In recognition of the complexity of the case and imminency of need, it was positive to see that JJ was listed promptly for discussion once he had been referred. However, the initial delay in referral resulted in little time for MAPPA to effectively contribute to the pre-release planning, with PO1 having already set licence conditions with the prison, without a contribution from the MAPPA panel. 

The minutes from each of the four the MAPPA meetings held to discuss JJ were of an insufficient standard, providing limited evidence that partner agencies were active in supporting the management of risk of serious harm he presented. 

There were missed opportunities for meaningful actions to be set in response to new information, and a lack of oversight of outstanding actions. JJ was de-registered from MAPPA oversight without an adequate rationale, whilst two actions which had already been carried forward remained outstanding. 

Approved Premises 

The Approved Premises (AP) placement was an opportunity to positively contribute to the management of JJ’s risk of serious harm. Key work sessions were held by AP staff which were appropriately focused, with structured sessions on the immediate needs of JJ; exploring issues such as registration with a GP, finance, and education, training, and employment (ETE), which supported his resettlement into the community. However, professional curiosity was not applied during AP staff interactions with JJ. There is no evidence that there was sufficient exploration of his behaviour and movements, which would have aided the probation practitioner’s understanding of how JJ was spending his time away from the AP. 

AP staff should play a significant role, both in providing relevant risk information to the probation practitioner and in contributing to effective risk management. It is essential that they understand the risk of serious harm presented, are actively involved in the delivery of the risk management plan and are part of MAPPA meetings. An AP representative was not able to engage in pre-release planning due to the delayed referral, and subsequently did not attend the MAPPA meetings held, which impacted on pre-release planning, information exchange and the effective risk management of the case.

Mental health 

JJ had been sectioned previously in 2018 and had informed probation practitioners that feelings of anxiety and paranoia were normal for him. Prior to release, JJ’s mental health was described to be stable, and probation practitioners stated that there were no obvious signs of a mental health decline upon release into the community. 

However, he was described by PO1 as presenting as ‘low’ on occasion, which was attributed to boredom and need for structure in the community. Days prior to the SFO, JJ was described as talkative and going off on irrelevant tangents in his conversations with probation staff. Furthermore, JJ informed PSR1 that when committing the further offences on licence, he had been experiencing poor mental health. This was not explored further and there was a lack of significance given to this statement, resulting in no analysis or action. 

Probation practitioners were aware of JJ’s mental health history but lacked any detailed information. They were also aware that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable, and JJ himself had reported that random aggression could be a sign of his mental health declining. However, this was not identified as a factor linked to risk of serious harm within OASys assessments. Additionally, the correlation between his continued use of illegal substances and his mental health was not sufficiently explored or responded to. Prior to JJ’s release from custody, information on JJ’s mental health was sent by the prison mental health in-reach team to his registered GP, however they were not aware that the GP had retired. Upon registration with a new GP, this prior information on JJ’s mental ill health was not passed to them. 

There was a reliance on JJ recognising and self-reporting a decline in his mental health and on the one occasion he disclosed such concerns no action was taken. Probation practitioners stated that there was a gap in services available to support those with mental health, particularly if there were also substance misuse concerns. As emphasised by the report published in 2021, A joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs and disorders, mental health can present significant challenges for probation practitioners, and is often characterised by insufficient information exchange and the need for better training and support. Inspectors found during this review that staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available. 

Substance misuse 

JJ had used cannabis since he was a child and was described to be lacking insight into the harmful effects of his substance misuse. Probation records and a psychiatrist’s assessment indicate a link between JJ’s substance misuse use and mental health, and that JJ’s sectioning in 2018 had been preceded by the consumption of medication, alcohol, and cannabis. Additionally, much of JJ’s offending was linked to substance misuse. 

Probation case records show that JJ was routinely using cannabis while on licence. He had completed substance misuse intervention programmes in custody and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. However, such an intervention was not organised by probation practitioners, and we could find no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency. 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners did not explore the underlying reasons for JJ’s substance misuse, and minimised and tolerated regular use while he was on licence. This was underpinned by a failure to adequately analyse the impact of substance misuse to the risk of serious harm he posed.

Being A PDU Head

Perspectives on an Inspection

In 2022 the dreaded phone call came from my manager. They told me that a difficult year was about to get a lot worse because HMIP were coming to my PDU. The relief from my colleagues that their PDUs had not been selected was enormous.

The inspection could not have come at a worse time, the workload was increasing and the staff levels decreasing. the enormous amount of work to prepare for the inspection, on top of all the other work was ridiculous. Unfortunately the final case sample was mainly cases held by very inexperienced PSOs, who had been thrown in the deep end to sink or swim. Consequently very few cases in the sample were from experienced (and excellent) practitioners.

We had some alert cases but the whole inspection actually went quite well. As with Ruth Perry there was a session where questions were fired at me by the Inspectors to answer on the spot. That did not go well because many of the questions were about matters outside of the PDU or issues they had only just uncovered that I wasn’t aware of and I felt I was being tripped up and I was really on the back foot. Information got back to the Head of Operations who started to question my responses to the questions - why did you say that? Go back and correct it!

The feedback session at the end went fairly well, and I went away feeling that we would get a good outcome, particularly under the circumstances of rising workloads. Like Ruth Perry I counted down the days to receiving the report, which was delayed. I finally got the draft for corrections and I felt like the bottom fell out of my world. The outcome was terrible. I couldn’t think how I could face the team to tell people that are working so hard that we had been found to be so poor. Would people leave when they saw it, why would people stay?

Personally I felt humiliated, the report included some personal criticism of me, and I couldn’t see how I could have any credibility to carry on with my job and look people in the eye. I wondered if I would get sacked or moved.

I had to hold on to the findings in the report for weeks before I was able to share it with the managers and then have to face the PDU. They were really disappointed and couldn’t understand that you put everything into the job, work huge amounts of overtime, help people get back on track but it’s not enough.

After the initial horror came the work to develop an improvement plan, and the constant sense that I was being punished with extra work because everything was my fault.

I appreciate people reading this might think we get paid to shoulder this sort of thing, but PDU heads are people, and these inspections are traumatic and devastating in the main. We have to put on a show of holding on to the positives and try and move forward, but the tremendous blow after 30+ years in the service nearly broke me, and I know I’m not the only one.

--oo00oo--

The author wanted to share the perspective of PDU heads on Inspections following the determination of the Inquest into the death of Ruth Perry that the Ofsted inspection contributed to her death.

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.

A Mutiny?

I've been out all day, so most of the following contributions have only just been published and I'll let them speak for themselves:-

I simply do not understand how an SPO is justified in allocating work to staff (interesting distinctions made between managers and “my team” ie the staff, that seems to me to say so much more than a simple pay grade above a PO), knowing that those staff are already holding a full case load and therefore have NO CAPACITY for allocation of additional work. That in itself is an admission of inflicting harm on those very staff if you know people in ‘your team’ are at that point not coping and are stressed. Surely that is a line of accountability here that leads directly to ALL in the management structure?

Wringing of hands does not remove or negate this accountability. Saying we know this is wrong but have no choice but to continue harming staff is what seems to be some sort of admission here and for which there can be no absolution because it causes you worry but yet you keep repeating the behaviour. That said, what about those we are allocated, where is the procedural justice, care and support for them? Knowing this is wrong but ‘having’ to keep doing it, is no justification. If you keep shovelling shit down it eventually lands on the most vulnerable and there should be no doubt that this is precisely what is openly being done. So victims, offenders and justice is being systemically failed. PO

******

Toxic management meetings combining handwringing about staff struggling and leaving, then in come the performance figures and get your team to do this. I've heard PDU heads wring their hands about workloads and the consequences of them and then bow down to head of ops who simply doesn't give a hoot. The RPD comes in with fluff about proper probation practice but gaslights people about workloads and fails to take any responsibility by being will ignorant of what's going on, meaning all the pressure falls once again to PO/PSO and SPOs, when it should be going up.

******
I’ve never spoken to a single PO / PSO that felt their PDU heads were fit for purpose. The reality is they aren’t. They have the power to do something about this mess but they don’t. They ‘wring their hands’ and ‘bow their heads’ and knowingly allow the harm to staff to continue. They have far more power than SPOs but they just toddle along like things will magically rectify themselves, without them actually doing anything to make that happen. Then they wonder why they have a mutiny on their hands, where staff have had enough and are saying no. I have no sympathy for them. They contribute to the daily nightmare that never ends. 

There will be many more catastrophic SFOs and practitioners AND SPOs will take the fall for them every single time. Careers and reputations destroyed, emotional and mental health in shreds, and the PDU heads and RPDs will go unscathed every single time. Cases are people but so are staff and the Service is nothing without its practitioners. Something the higher-ups seem to have completely forgotten. They will remember fast enough when they suddenly have hundreds of cases to reallocate and literally nobody to give them to, because most of their staff are off sick, overwhelmed and unable to function anymore because of the stress they have wilfully dumped at our doors with no thought for our well-being. 

Duty of care starts at the top. Practice is broken because staff are broken. Hire more agency staff. LISTEN TO STAFF. Understand we are only human and we AREN’T expendable unless they want a Service consisting of trainees and newly qualified officers because experienced staff have either left or are too unwell to work. Stop breaking staff. There are no excuses, justifications or reasons to do this to staff. There will be no staff retention unless they STOP BREAKING US.

******
Other services are protecting their work force better than Probation. Some police areas have stopped taking IOM referrals due to lack of capacity. Many children's services have protected caseloads. They know that if they don't protect staff they lose them. So why do we have no control and why are managers not doing more to reduce our caseloads and have a genuine safe working measurement? PSS should go for starters and we should not have to deal with the shambles of accommodation. The task should go to another specialist service. It taking up too much valuable time and contributing to burn out. 

We need more Probation officers, ones with experience so why are PO's being shifted over to work on quality control? It ridiculous and these jobs need to go, get the PO's back doing offender manage. I read the article from the PO and it's spot on. Sounds like someone has taken my brain contents and splattered it over the blog. It's nice to know I'm not alone but all the more shocking to know how many of us are genuinely suffering and being abused so badly at work.

Risk Assessments Inaccurate and Incomplete

I notice HMI Justin Russell has published an alarming report highlighting serious failings in a key part of the work of Probation. This from the press release:-

Serious Further Offences (SFO) Annual report – assessments of risk of harm remain inaccurate and incomplete

HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its second annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, finding that assessments of the risk of harm people on probation pose remain inaccurate and incomplete – not enough is being done to stop them reoffending and SFO reviews remain below the expected standard.

Serious Further Offences (SFOs) are specific violent and sexual offences like murder, manslaughter and rape committed by people who are, or were recently, under probation supervision. Over 500 SFOs are notified to HMPPS every year and for the victims and families affected the impact and consequences cannot be underestimated.

The vast majority of SFO reviews are conducted by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) itself. The Inspectorate is occasionally requested, by the Secretary of State for Justice, to conduct an independent SFO review, and has this year published reports into the review of the case of Damien Bendall and the review of the case of Jordan McSweeney.

For this annual report, we looked at 20 per cent (86 cases) of the SFO reviews conducted by local probation regions between April 2022 and April 2023 – 30 of these involved a serious further offence of murder, and 20 of rape. In comparison to last year’s findings, it was concerning to see that we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated as of either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ quality reduced from 69 to 52 per cent.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “It is disappointing to see the quality of satisfactory reviews of serious further offences conducted by the Probation Service reduce by nearly 20 per cent. It is clear, both from the SFO cases we have looked at and our own independent SFO reviews, that the Probation Service must strive to do a better job of consistently and accurately identifying the minority of people on probation at risk of causing serious harm. And learning the lessons from these very concerning incidents.

“This will involve using all available information, to properly assess and monitor risk, with public protection at the forefront of planning and decision making. I hope that our recommendations, and those from our recent independent SFO reviews, will mean improvements that future lead to high-quality probation services that can safeguard potential victims and keep people safe.”

Of the cases covered by the 86 SFO reviews we analysed, we found:

• 44 per cent of the risk of harm assessments were inaccurate or incomplete
• 42 per cent of the offences were committed by a person on probation who had been assessed as posing only a medium risk of serious harm before the offence happened. 44 per cent were committed by an individual assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm (this is up from 33 per cent last year)
• 42 per cent were managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).

Mr Russell continued: “It is very concerning that assessments for the risk of harm a person on probation may pose remain inaccurate, incorrect, or incomplete. It is clear that reduced staffing levels within local services continue to have an impact on the quality of work we are seeing, both in these serious further offence reviews and the findings from our local inspections. Once again, I call on HMPPS to ensure services have the staff they need in order to manage every person on probation actively and effectively to monitor any risk of reoffending.”

This annual report makes a number of recommendations for improving the quality of SFO reviews, including revising the operating model used to produce them and maximising the way that learning is shared.

--oo00oo--

From the Report :-

Chief Inspectors Overview

Each year His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is notified of around 500 Serious Further Offences (SFOs) like murder, manslaughter and rape which are alleged to have been committed by people who are under Probation Service supervision. Following each of these incidents, the Probation Service undertakes what is called a Serious Further Offence review. In 2020, the Secretary of State for Justice asked us to start to independently quality assure a sample of these reviews. We began this role in April 2021, and this is our second annual report into this activity. 

Between April 2022 and April 2023, we quality assured a total of 86 reviews – approximately 20 per cent of the total produced by the Probation Service over this period. Concerningly, we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ reducing from 69 to 52 per cent compared with the previous year’s findings. I was also concerned to see an increase in the proportion of reviews that relate to people on probation who had previously been assessed as high risk and who therefore should have been subject to the highest and most robust standard of supervision by the service. 

More needs to be done to improve the quality of SFO reviews and the work that the service does to assess and manage the risk of serious harm to the public from people on probation. The Probation Service needs to ensure that it produces high quality SFO reviews that identify all available learning and support practitioners to improve the way they manage risk of serious harm. Our quality assurance work is demonstrating that this is not being done consistently, with notable regional differences in the quality of the SFO reviews being produced. 

Last year, I raised concerns about the grade and independence of those undertaking SFO reviews, given that these reviews are carried out by middle managers from within the region in which the SFO itself occurred. Given the results of our quality assurance of reviews over the past year, my concerns have, if anything, increased and I would recommend that HMPPS give serious consideration to ensuring that reviews, certainly those involving the most serious incidents, are conducted by more senior staff from a different region to that in which the offence occurred. 

Earlier this year we also published two independent reviews into the cases of Damien Bendall and Jordan McSweeney. Both identified serious concerns in relation to risk assessment, workload, management oversight, professional curiosity, case allocation and case management. These findings mirror the concerns identified within the broader range of SFO reviews we quality assure and those of our local probation inspections. 

Positively, HMPPS accepted each of the 27 recommendations that we made in the Bendall and McSweeney reviews, many of which centre on needing to improve the assessment and management of the risks of serious harm. I hope that the recommendations in this annual report, and those from our independent reviews, will result in the urgently needed improvements that can lead to high-quality services that safeguard potential victims and keep people safe. 

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Conclusion 

This report has highlighted a decline in the overall standard of the SFO reviews quality assured this year, with the numbers rated as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ reducing from 69 per cent to 52 per cent. 

We emphasised in last year's annual report that more work was needed to improve the overall quality of SFO reviews, therefore this year’s findings place an even greater emphasis on this.

 SFO reviewers are not sufficiently considering practice at all levels, and this failure to consider whether systemic or procedural factors underpin poor practice is also impacting on how well all learning opportunities are identified. There has been a notable decline in the quality of both the learning and victim elements of SFO reviews, both of which are key factors in meeting the overall aim of these reviews. 

We published two independent reviews this year, which made a total of 27 recommendations to support HMPPS in making critical changes and improving how people on probation are managed in the community. Each of these recommendations has been accepted by HMPPS.

Recurring practice deficits are being identified through the SFO process, many of which also correlate with the findings of the local inspections and those from the two independent reviews we published. This raises further concerns that SFO reviews are not fulfilling their aim or potential in driving forward change and preventing practice deficits from reoccurring. 

Our work over the forthcoming year aims to support HMPPS in driving improvements in the quality of SFOs reviews, as well as monitoring how well the action plans are implemented and effect change. It is imperative that SFO reviews meet the expected standard so that victims and their families have a transparent overview of the practice in the case and relevant learning can be taken forward effectively and drive change. 

We make the following recommendations to HMPPS to improve to the quality of SFO reviews:

1. promptly review the SFO review document format to maximise the opportunity to produce high quality and informative SFO reviews that meet the needs of victims and their families 

2. ensure that the learning identified is translated into meaningful and impactful actions 

3. ensure that where applicable, all learning linked to the Probation partnership working is identified and shared with the relevant agencies 

4. develop a process to ensure that learning from SFO reviews is fed back into the organisation to inform and shape developments within probation regions and more widely across HMPPS 

5. ensure that robust and rigorous countersigning takes place on all SFO reviews before they are submitted for quality assurance 

6. put robust processes in place to ensure that, following quality assurance feedback, all required changes to the SFO review document are made timely and to a sufficient standard. 

7. SFO reviews, particularly those of the most serious offences, should where possible be undertaken by a separate probation region to that responsible for supervising the case at the time of the SFO. And consideration should be given to raising the grade of SFO reviewers, particularly for the most serious or complex cases.

We Live in Hope

I notice the latest edition of Probation Quarterly from the Probation Institute includes an article making the case for removing probation from the grip of the civil service. One has to hope there's some serious behind-the-scenes lobbying going on of the Labour Party because I'm seeing precious little evidence of them being any more enlightened than the present Tory government at the moment.   

The diminishing voice of the probation service

Introduction 

In the past twenty years, the probation service in England and Wales has undergone four largescale reforms, placing the service in a near-constant state of flux as it adopts to a revolving door of top-down re-organisations (Mair and Burke, 2013). Indeed, probation has recently emerged from the near ‘death knell’ (Newburn, 2013) of the failed transforming rehabilitation (TR) reforms and has since been reunified into one National Probation Service (NPS). However, the NPS faces a renewed set of challenges as it adopts to its increasingly centralised role within the civil service structure and subordinated role within HMPPS (HM Prison and Probation Service). 

This article will briefly outline three current challenges probation is facing, including: the straight-jacket imposed by a monolithic civil service culture; the further domination of prisons arising from the ‘one HMPPS’ leadership restructuring, and; the diminishing voice of probation in court work and parole hearings. These three challenges demonstrate concerns that a vital service is losing its independence and critical voice on a local and national stage. These challenges will also be assessed in light of the negative media reporting regarding probation’s role in a number of recent serious further offences (SFOs) (Editorial, 2023). This article will conclude by suggesting a potential pathway to ensure the distinct voice of probation continues to be heard.

The diminishing voice of the probation service 

The first concern relates to the current management structure of the NPS. When the TR reforms were bought to an end, the newly reunified service was subsumed into the civil service structure. Concerns related to the unsuitability of civil service management for probation have been outlined by academic research, probation union representation and penal reform charities.

For example, preliminary findings outlined by Tidmarsh (Webster, 2022), concerning professional identity, culture and practice in probation since the collapse of TR, explains that despite staff welcoming the opportunity to be working once again as a single public sector organisation, there was widespread disquiet that the probation service is not a ‘good fit’ with the ‘grey, faceless bureaucracy’ of the civil service, which doesn’t allow for the flexibility and dynamism that is central to effective probation practice. Furthermore, Carr (2022) notes that as civil servants, probation staff are now bound by the civil service code and will face restrictions on their ability to speak publicly about their work – restricting their voice and ability to articulate concerns. Recent high profile SFOs and accusations that probation officers have been pressured to downgrade risk assessments (Editorial, 2013) help articulate the importance of staff being able to articulate concerns when they arise. 

The National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) have also published their opposition to the suitability of a top-down command and control ethos of the Civil Service to probation practice, describing this move as “a disaster for the profession” (NAPO, 2022). Francis Crook (now retired) chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform argues that the nationalised structure of the NPS under the reunification of probation, has “nationalised not localised” (Crook, 2021) the service and the civil service structure will leave probation with no autonomy, independence or local voice. Indeed, Crook outlines concerns that the centralised structures of the civil service will damage local visibility and accountability. 

The second concern relates to a more recent re-structuring of HMPPS, titled the ‘one HMPPS’ programme (Ministry of Justice (MoJ), 2022a). The last thirty years of probation reforms have witnessed a number of attempts to amalgamate prison and probation services, despite longstanding concerns that they inhabit very different cultures (Cracknell, 2021). The one HMPPS programme is the latest attempt and involves the creation of two new leadership roles; a chief executive officer of HMPPS and a director general of operations. These roles replace the previous structure, which had separate director generals for the prison and probation functions. This means that the leadership structure for HMPPS oversees both prisons and probation, instead of separate oversight of each organisation. The MoJ claim this will help promote a more joined-up framework and enables a ‘whole sentence’ approach to sentences (MoJ, 2022a). Although any attempts to help ensure continuity in resettlement processes should be welcomed, substantial concerns have been highlighted by this change of leadership structure. This includes critiques by the Probation Institute who hold serious concerns that the integration of prisons and probation at senior management level “will quickly lead to the disappearance of a distinct Probation Service” (Probation Institute, 2022).

The Institute outlines six ways where prisons and probation have very distinct and incompatible working practices, and how these practices might be damaged by this leadership change. This includes: 

• Profession: The probation service requires a professional qualification at higher education level, whereas the prison service has no such requirement. 

• Purposes: The probation service prioritises risk management and rehabilitation work, and is closely aligned with a social work ethos. In comparison, prisons prioritise safety, security and fairly run prisons and thus have a different underlying ethos. 

• Culture: The two services have vastly different cultures, with probation embedded in the community and concerned with societal influences of offending, while prisons have different attitudes and behaviours towards the underlying causes of offending and are not community-based. 

• Size and funding: The size and funding of prisons vastly overwhelms probation, dominating budgets. • Leadership: Prisons have a clear command and control structure, while probation work demands more autonomy and in this respect it would be difficult for a prison practitioner to lead a probation service. 

• Training: Probation training consists of a two-year higher education course, while prison training is 6 weeks long and is focused on security. 

Napo (2022) outline similar concerns to the Probation Institute and regard the one HMPPS programme as a risk to the profession – particularly at a time as probation services are still undergoing the turbulence of reunification. Further concerns have been outlined by Justin Russell, the Chief Inspector of the probation  service. Echoing longstanding concerns of the ‘Cinderella service’ (Robinson, 2016) being dominated by its larger partner organisation, Russell forewarns that “the day to day operational and political demands of the prison service can all too easily distract focus from the Probation Service and its particular (and very different) needs” (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2022) and asserts that the ‘voice of the Probation Service’ must continue to be heard amongst this leadership restructuring. At a time of negative press surrounding recent high-profile SFOs, it’s very important that HMPPS resources and focus are prioritised for the specific needs and issues that the probation service is facing. 

The third concern relates to the probation service losing its voice within the important work it undertakes in the wider criminal justice system. For example, pre-sentence reports (PSRs) have been in sharp decline in the past decade (Robinson, 2017). The probation service has been a longstanding key actor in court work, however, a culture in contemporary court work that values speed over quality, means a critical element of probation’s pre-sentencing work is in decline as less PSRs are ordered and probation work is becoming a less visible presence in the court setting. Fast delivery oral reports have seemingly replaced the longer, but more in-depth PSRs (Robinson, 2017), however, there are concerns related to the quality of information provided in these oral reports, and this is potentially damaging the integrity of the probation voice in courts and sentencers trust in the recommendations made by probation staff (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020). The decline in the use of PSRs has had serious detrimental impacts on public protection, with their decline cited in a factor in poor risk management practices involving recent high-profile SFOs (Probation Institute, 2023).

A further example of this diminishing voice within criminal justice work, concerns probation’s role in the parole process. A recent root and branch review of parole, now mean that probation staff are no longer able to provide recommendations or views on a prisoner’s suitability for release or transfer to open conditions in the reports they provide to the Parole Board (MoJ, 2022b) (this is currently undergoing a legal challenge). The review also gives further powers for the Secretary of State to provide a ‘single view’ on a prisoner’s suitability for release, leading to ministerial control taking precedence over the professional voice. Notwithstanding evidence that this has led to a significant reduction in prisoners transfer to open estates and an expected increase in the overall prison population (Prison Reform Trust, 2022), this means that another core function of probation work – assessing and managing risk – is becoming eroded. Media reporting on the recent SFOs already calls into question the effectiveness of probations ability to manage risk, and this decision further undermines probation’s expertise in this area. 

Conclusion: charting a way back 

Despite these above concerns, that probation practitioners continue to operate with such commitment in this difficult climate demonstrates the remarkable durability of probation values. However, three suggestions are outlined below which will hopefully help to sustain these values and amplify the crucial probation voice: 

• Remove the NPS from the civil service framework and return to a localised service, where probation is accountable and responsive to its local communities, and practitioners are given the autonomy to operate and articulate their voice.

• Ensure probation continues as a distinct service, and its voice clearly heard within the HMPPS structure, alongside recognition and continued support for its underlying values, culture and training, that are distinct from the prison service. The recent Target Operating Model for Probation Services in England and Wales (HMPPS, 2021) provides a helpful guideline for supporting this, with a focus on professionalism and staff development, and seeks to implement Professional Standards alongside a professional register framework of probation practice and renewed training initiatives. Continued commitment to this professionalism agenda will be crucial. 

• The targeting operating model (HMPPS, 2021) also emphasises a commitment to improving the quality of advice to courts and PSRs, this has subsequently been re-affirmed by a pilot scheme designed to improve the quality of information presented to court at each of the fifteen pilot sites (MoJ, 2021). However, staffing issues continue to hamper probation practitioner’s ability to provide their in-depth expertise in the court setting, and this issue needs to be addressed urgently. Recent decisions concerning parole board hearings should also be reviewed and reconsidered, allowing these expert professional opinions to play an important role in these hearings. 

Despite the above potentially presenting as another widescale re-organisation, this hopefully charts a way back for the probation service to return to its roots as a service embedded in the local community, with a distinct professional identity, that has practitioners with the skill and knowledgebase to undertake vital work throughout the criminal justice system.

Matt Cracknell, 

Senior Lecturer in Criminology 

Middlesex University