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.

Sentencing Review 3

Mr Jones has spoken:- 

A statement from HM Chief Inspector of Probation, on the launch of an Independent Review of Sentencing

Last week the Lord Chancellor announced an Independent Review of Sentencing, which will be chaired by former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, and supported by a panel including representatives from the judiciary and expertise from across the justice system.

I believe this review represents a unique opportunity to deliver a more effective system, resulting in better use of resources, lower reoffending rates, fewer victims and safer communities.

The decisions HM Inspectorate of Probation stands ready to support this work, using our findings to highlight options for the future of probation, and its consequential impact on prisons, and I have shared my initial thoughts, as detailed below. 

• Use of community orders and sentence lengths 
• Increasing the use of deferred sentences 
• Length of licence periods
• Recalls 
• Better support in the community

Use of community orders and sentence lengths:

I have no hesitation in arguing that serious, violent or sexual offenders should receive custodial sentences which are long enough to punish, deter, and protect the public. However, whilst prison must be there for the most serious offences, based on the Ministry’s published evidence there is a compelling case to move less serious cases from prison into the community. There, a better resourced, more stable probation service, working closely with local partnerships, would reduce reoffending, keep communities safer, and prevent future victims. Far from being soft on crime, such a move is smarter and demonstrably more effective. This approach would also enable our prisons to become safer places, where successful rehabilitation can become the expectation, rather than the exception.

The shift in numbers over the last decade is stark. In 2012 c150,000 people received a community sentence, and it was the mainstay of the work of probation. By 2023 that number had more than halved to c71,000. Over the same period the growth in post-sentence supervision has meant that the probation service is spending a far greater proportion of its resources preparing prisoners for release and supervising and enforcing licence conditions. C137,000 people are currently subject to pre or post release supervision. This is in spite of the fact that we know that well-delivered community sentences may be more effective at getting to the root of the causes of crime and reducing reoffending.

Given the extent of the shift, a new strategy is now needed to reinvigorate and rebuild sentencer and public confidence in community sentences. Whilst undoubtedly punitive, short custodial sentences do little to achieve rehabilitation and creating a statutory presumption against their use could reduce reoffending. In youth justice there is a minimum four-month threshold for a Detention Training Order which works effectively.

I note the recent Judicial Critique on sentence inflation and believe that through a non-partisan review of the evidence it may be possible to reverse the inexorable, expensive and, in reality, ineffective increases in sentence lengths we have seen over the last three decades. Such a move would enable the Government to better refocus the finite resources available to reduce reoffending, ensure rehabilitation in our prisons, and better support intervention and supervision in the community on licence.

Increasing the use of deferred sentences:

Many of those that end up in contact with the criminal justice systems are there because of their underlying issues. People in prison are more likely to have: 

• spent a childhood in care; 
• experienced abuse as a child; 
• failed to have gained qualifications, or been excluded from school; 
• been unemployed or homeless; 
• suffered depression or other mental health issues; used class A drugs or misused alcohol.

A short time in prison will fix none of those underlying issues, nor will a short period on licence; feeding the revolving door of reoffending.

In France, some custodial sentences are not served immediately. Judges who believe custody is merited can instead provide a window for an individual who has committed a crime to turn their lives around before they invoke a prison sentence. People have an incentive to engage and receive credit where that opportunity is taken. The sentencing review might consider the case for a similar approach involving deferred sentencing for those with entrenched underlying issues. Local partnerships, led by probation, could work to deliver better provision, tackling these challenges which are cross-cutting local and central Government. For less serious offences it may be possible to deliver similar outcomes through use of conditional cautioning (with requirements that must be fulfilled).

Length of licence periods:

Whilst we can make better use of our prisons, there will always be people whose offences are so serious that detention is the only answer. All prisoners must be released when they have served the relevant part of their sentence, or (for the most serious cases) when they are no longer judged a risk to the public. At that point they need to be supervised for long enough to ensure the public are protected, but there is a risk that excessive licence periods can be a sword of Damocles, which do not allow people on probation to move on with their lives.

As sentences have grown longer, so has the number of people being supervised by the probation service. Nearly 60% of the service’s caseload are people being prepared for release or being managed in the community. This has been a seismic shift of focus. As a result, there is a danger the probation service becomes focused on supervision and ensuring compliance with rules rather than seeking to turn lives around. It would be reasonable to consider pruning that caseload. Until 2014, those serving less than twelve months in custody were not supervised by the probation service at all, nor could they be recalled to custody.

The sentencing review could usefully consider shortening those licence periods to give the probation service more time and space to better manage the cases where its supervision can make the most difference. Before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there were periods where people on probation were not supervised on licence, but would instead face a tougher sentence if they reoffended in their “at risk” period. Such changes would also limit recall numbers.

Recalls:

Whilst, for understandable reasons, there has been a focus on the remand population which has been driven up in recent years by the Crown Court backlog; the fastest growing part of the population over the last two decades has been the recall population. This has been driven by sentencing changes including the now abolished IPP sentence, and an increase in the number of people supervised and subject to recall.

In the year 2000, the recall population was under 1,000 (even then a record high). By 2010, as a result of sentencing changes including growing licence periods and a reduction in judicial oversight of recall, it had increased to over 5,000. According to the last published figure the recall population now stands at 12,199 which equates to 14% of the total prison population. Recent increases have been driven by the extension of supervision to short sentences, and the underlying fear of serious further offending. According to official figures over 2,000 prisoners are recalled to prison every month. Whilst it is important that licence conditions are enforced, it is unclear to me what this scale of recall is achieving.

Recall can be a vital tool to protect the public when there are signs that a person on probation’s risk has increased. I am certain that a timely, well-judged recall keeps the public safer – particularly where there is high risk (as seen in our independent reviews of cases like McSweeney and Bendall). However, it may not always be necessary. Despite the twelve-fold rise in the recall population, there is little to indicate that the overall rate of serious further offending has changed significantly over the period. In 2009-10 there were 273 convicted SFOs. In the latest year for which figures are available (2021-22) there were 288. The number of SFOs remains broadly stable at close to 300.

According to the publishes figures on reasons for recall, the majority of recalls are for non-compliance (39 per cent), failing to keep in touch (17 per cent), failing to reside (13 per cent), or problems with drugs and alcohol (4 per cent). These figures support my assessment that recalls are inexorably linked with pressure on the probation service, a lack of confidence, and a lack of adequate support in the community.

I would fully support moves to draw upon international evidence to reimagine the way in which recall is used. In most common law countries (including Scotland, Canada and New Zealand) there is judicial oversight by the courts, or the Parole Board, of executive use of recall. It is noteworthy that the recall population started to rise steeply following the removal of judicial oversight of recall in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Under Canadian law, there is a statutory requirement that even if a prisoner’s recall is endorsed by the Canadian Parole Board, a new automatic release date is calculated to avoid a situation where prisonersare released with no supervision by probation. They argue this keeps the public safer, and I am minded to agree.

Better support in the community:

We know from the evidence that having a place to live, the opportunity for employment, help with drugs, alcohol or mental health problems, and support in the community, are key to reducing reoffending. However, the unsustainable pressures on prisons, probation and local services make this extremely difficult to achieve. The high rates of recall and reoffending we see at present demonstrate that there is much more to do to improve preparedness for release. I am hoping that we will identify some helpful lessons through our planned Approved Premises inspection programme which is due to commence in 2025, and our upcoming national inspection of the Probation Service.

In recent inspections HM Inspectorate of Probation have found that recall is often the result of a lack of support in the community. In essence a lack of help with drugs, alcohol, mental health, and accommodation, combined with probation officers being under too much pressure to spot early warning signs, precipitates a “crisis” that results in recall. Avoiding that crisis by earlier action would represent a significantly better use of resources. Although unpalatable, it may be necessary to move a proportion of offender managers in custody to better manage people in the community.

Based on the annual cost of a prison place, the 12,000 recall population currently costs the taxpayer c£600m a year. I am certain that, through prudent change, that number could be reduced and some of those resources could be reinvested to better manage people in the community. It is noteworthy that Youth Justice Services tend to achieve better results because they have strong statutory partnerships and local leadership to get to the heart of the reasons children offend. Within a national organisation it should still be possible to provide delegated local budgets which empower local probation leaders to work with local partners to design and develop services that are capable of breaking the destructive cycle of reoffending.

Dear Mr Jones

I thought this was good, so deserves a post on its own:-

Dear Mr Jones,

"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

The inspection results have been dire for years, but no-one has ever taken the management structure to task over any of those dire results, i.e. most of the culprits are still in post/have been promoted.

Why do I take such a view? Because my experiences of inspections have always been:

1. there is plenty of advance notice (usually months) of the imminent inspection, the cases to be inspected and the purpose of the inspection
2. local management order the toilets to be painted
3. case records are audited, adjusted and staff groomed
4. local management have cosy chats with the inspectors

And despite all of these 'advantages' and prep time, probation areas achieve shit scores... the failures are levelled at frontline staff... and not much changes at any level.

You say: "My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings."

I ask:

1. Why are there unlikely to be significant improvements? We've had decades of strategies & policies and consultations and political directives, yet nothing has changed for the better. Everything has just "gotten shitter".

2. Potential damage to frontline morale? Potential? The potential has been reached; and exceeded. I'm not sure frontline morale could be any more damaged than it already is. How about sacking some of the "excellent leaders" who have carelessly and callously led the service into this death spiral while being labelled "excellent" and "strong" by... the inspectors!

3. Public confidence? Most of the general public have no idea who or what probation is, except when some poor bastard on the frontline is being hung out to dry following a dreadful incident beyond their control, while the piss poor management make tutting noises and chunter about "lessons to be learned" or "a sad lack of professional inquisitiveness".

Have ***any*** lessons been learned?

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2022/09/sfo-2022/

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/2021/06/09-june-2021/

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/3582/transforming-rehabilitation-inquiry/news/99492/new-probation-system-must-learn-lessons-from-botched-current-model/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/nov/02/probation-service-monitoring-inquiry-sonnex

https://news.sky.com/story/re-offending-fears-as-probation-service-fails-to-learn-from-past-mistakes-11987919

https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/jun/04/sonnex-probation-service

https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/02/28/probation-staff-suspended-following-critical-report/

No!

So, seeing as repeating the same format with no improvement is proving unhelpful, maybe HMI Probation could stop using the same tactics and start doing unannounced inspections where inspectors turn up at an office and look at random case records with the case managers, listening to them as they discuss the cases together, getting to grips with the local difficulties and impossibilities, reading the bullying emails, experiencing the true gravity of the situation.

Then, maybe, there might be some real progress in short order.

Yours,

Anon

Have Your Say

A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings.

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement.

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so.

Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation has commented “We are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on front line services and in public confidence if we merely continue to report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters, including the recent SDS40 changes and Probation Reset, to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection, and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection.”

Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and hope you will take the opportunity to respond.

You can read the full consultation document here – A consultation on standards and ratings for a national inspection of the Probation Service (PDF, 357 kB)

Foreword 

The national arrangements for the delivery of probation services have a crucial role in enabling effective frontline delivery. We see some of the impact of this national activity through our regional and PDU inspections, but these do not give us a full picture of the impact of national arrangements. We need this information so that we can target recommendations where they will best drive improvement. This is why we are preparing to carry out an inspection of the Probation Service, focusing on the arrangements and activity in place at a national level. This will give us a comprehensive picture of the things that help or hinder the effective delivery of probation services by regions and PDUs. 

We have published fifteen reports and two regional inspection reports during 2024. Whilst we have found some positive practice and leadership in some areas, all of those reports have rated PDUs and regions as either Inadequate or Requires improvement. The themes underpinning our scores are consistent. Areas are still hamstrung by staffing deficits (including retention difficulties), consistent shortfalls in our standards on public protection, and the workload pressures. 

My conclusion, is that we are unlikely to see any significant improvements in our findings in the short term and I am concerned at the potential damage to morale on the front line and public confidence if we merely report similar findings. Regions and PDUs need more time to allow matters including the recent SDS40 changes and probation reset to embed. We have a brief gap before we start the next regional inspection and we plan to utilise that time by undertaking a national inspection. 

In this consultation, we are asking for your views on our proposed standards for a national probation inspection, as well as how we rate the evidence that we see against the standards. Our aim is to focus on the things that make a difference to the ability of regions and PDUs to deliver probation services effectively. We are proposing four standards for which we will award ratings. Our ratings will continue to follow our established four-point scale and we are interested in your views on whether we should also provide an overall rating. We will make recommendations to drive improvement, targeting them where we believe they can have the most impact, and will publish our findings. 

This consultation is hugely important to us in shaping an approach that best drives improvement. 

Subject to the outcome of this consultation and resources, we plan to carry out the first national inspection in the first half of 2025. We have designed inspection standards that are future proof to enable us to undertake further national inspections when we think there is a need to do so. Our consultation closes at 11:59pm on Sunday 10 November 2024. We would very much welcome your views on the detail of our proposals, and I hope you will take the opportunity to respond. 

Martin Jones CBE 

Chief Inspector of Probation

Sound Advice Was Ignored

As rumours grow about possible funding cuts to be announced in the Budget, it turns out that the sentiment expressed in Friday's Guardian Editorial has a very long pedigree:- 

The Guardian view on prison reform: Labour must champion alternatives

Jails are squalid and the number of incarcerated people keeps rising. Investing in probation is part of the answer.

Last month’s report on sentencing from a group of former heads of the judiciary ended with a stark warning that the country faces a future of “US-style mass incarceration” – overcrowded prisons, mounting costs and deepening social inequalities – “without urgent remedial action to address sentence inflation”.

The gap between the two countries remains large. The UK has the highest per-capita prison population in western Europe. But the 0.1% of the population that is incarcerated in England, Wales and Scotland is still only a seventh of the 0.7% imprisoned in the US (Northern Ireland’s rate is far lower). Still, with the prison population of England and Wales predicted to rise from 88,000 (in August) to 106,000 by 2028, the judges are right to sound the alarm.

Ministers know they have a problem. So did their Conservative predecessors. Spending by the prison and probation service has ballooned to £4.6bn – around three-quarters of which goes on prisons, including £100m spent on keeping more than 2,000 men over 70 locked up. Conditions in many jails are appalling. The latest urgent notification from the prisons inspector, Charlie Taylor, regarding Manchester, described drones delivering drugs through windows that have been broken to enable this.

While Labour’s early release scheme was a sensible opening move, it has not been enough to curb rising prisoner numbers. In fact, the decision to let magistrates hand down longer sentences of up to 12 months is expected to further inflate the prison population. More radical changes will depend on the independent sentencing review promised in the manifesto.

The former Conservative justice secretary David Gauke is the favourite to lead this, and should command cross-party support. This matters because both parties bear responsibility for the sentence inflation of the past 30 years. The lack of alternatives to custody and low public confidence in existing ones have fuelled a widespread belief that voters – along with the rightwing press – prefer harsh sentencing. As a result, successive prime ministers have refused to commit to the penal reform programme that is urgently needed. Under Boris Johnson, sentences were increased, and rules changed so that some violent offenders must now serve two-thirds of their sentence behind bars, rather than half, before being considered for release.

The destructive consequences of the partial privatisation of the probation service were recognised when this was reversed. But further reform has been ducked. Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities. Investment in the workforce would be part of this process. Effective use of technology could also make community supervision work better. Given the problems with short sentences, including high reoffending rates, robust alternatives including tags, curfews and harm prevention orders should be prioritised.

Victims’ needs must also be considered. Campaigns against perceived leniency are one reason for sentence inflation. If the public is to be persuaded that alternatives to custody are meaningful, the service offered to victims must be improved. Unacceptable delays in the trial process contribute to a general sense of grievance at a broken system. While the last word on sentences belongs to judges, the public’s views on crime and punishment must be taken seriously if confidence in the system is to be renewed. Good communication is crucial. As a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer has relevant expertise and should be bold in pushing through change.

--oo00oo--

"Probation should be taken out of the Prison Service and locally embedded instead – with stronger links to councils, housing providers and charities."

There is absolutely nothing new in this widely-held sentiment and indeed I have been recently reminded just how far back the probation profession has been saying this. Only yesterday a trawl through mountains of paperwork here at blog HQ threw up a response by the West Yorkshire CPO Anne Mace to the Labour government's consultation document 'Joining Forces to Protect the Public' of 1998. I quote from it:-   

There is now a broad consensus and acceptance that solutions to the problem of crime and the harm it causes must be a priority for many local and regional agencies as well as Government, and equally that no one agency has the capacity to afford full protection to the public against crime. West Yorkshire Probation Service places great emphasis on the need for departments and agencies to work together to agreed objectives in order to reduce crime and increase community safety. We believe this requires both good strategic co-ordination from the centre, and robust inter-agency attention to planning, objective setting and service delivery partnerships at local level to address the issues that affect local communities. 

We are struck by the extent to which the consultation document which has emerged from a major Prisons Probation review focuses heavily on structural change for the probation service. It is our view that any revised structure for the Probation Service for the new millennium must have demonstrable links to capacity for improved local performance across the full range of Service responsibilities, and that this must be held in balance with the drive for national consistency. A new structure must also be a clear aid to greater public safety and confidence, future adaptability and innovation, clear and regular accountability to key stakeholders, and efficient use of public money. It must offer a model that fosters sound and responsive working relationships, both internally and externally, and that builds a platform for local and regional partnership developments that will increasingly feature in policies for tackling social malaise and economic decline, particularly in crime-ridden communities. The effectiveness of a locally delivered service does not require uniformity of provision. The critical issue for public protection and public confidence is achievement of effective outcomes.

The recently implemented provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 specifically promote the need for local agencies to work co-operatively together on Community Safety strategies and arrangements to tackle youth crime, which is consistent with the Home Office Aim for reduction in crime, particularly youth crime, the fear of crime, and maintenance of good order. West Yorkshire Probation Service welcomes these developments, but has found some of the proposals in the consultation document in conflict with them. The Best Value approach to public service provision requires that more relevant and effective local services are planned and negotiated by local managers who can make commitments in relation to both policy and resources. It is our view that a centralised command structure could not deliver such a service operationally with the requisite community focus. Successful resettlement and public protection grows from regular co-operation between key services locally ie police, probation, health services and the housing education and social services departments of Local Authorities. We would argue that this suggests the need for a strong local and regional touch within the framework of nationally determined policy and clearer lines of accountability for policy implementation than those that exist in the present governance arrangements.

We have also noted that the fifth annual report of the Chief Inspector of Probation (published June 1998) states that:-

The strength of the probation service is the unique place it occupies in the criminal justice world because it is involved at every stage in the process from crime prevention, through to pre-trial and to post-release work. One of its fundamental skills is its ability to liaise with all the players. Whatever changes may be made to the service in the future, that unique position must not be weakened. 

--oo00oo-- 

Well, sadly we know all these wise words were largely ignored by successive governments and hence we now face both a prison and probation service largely unfit for purpose.    

Postscript 21/10/24     

Astonishingly, a further search in the archives has revealed the fact that I submitted my own response to the consultation on 26/11/98. Here's what I said:-

This response is being made in a personal capacity as a current serving Probation Officer. I joined the West Yorkshire Probation Service in 1985 having successfully completed the four year combined BA and CQSW course at Bradford University. I have chosen to remain working for the last 13 years in a generic capacity within a field team based in Pontefract. As a consequence, I believe I have developed a broad experience of core probation practice and familiar with current issues of debate and concern. For the purpose of making this response I have had sight of the response from both the West Yorkshire Probation Service, together with the National Association of Probation Officers.

Organisationally, the Probation Service is clearly an anachronism and therefore I can appreciate a bureaucratic imperative to 'tidy' thins up a bit. But it must always be borne in mind that one of the Service's strengths has been a high degree of local 'ownership' together with accountability. There may be a clear case for some service amalgamations, but in my view some strong degree of local involvement must remain. Tackling crime and offending is increasingly viewed as best achieved through a partnership approach and the Probation Service has a proven track record in being able to deliver such initiatives, both by its local management and by being able to be flexible and responsive. My major concern is that this ability will be considerably hampered by making the service directly accountable centrally as envisaged by turning it into a Next Steps Agency. In my view this goes counter to accepted orthodoxy and may add yet further to our existing high levels of non-productive form filling and bureaucracy. 

There may be a case for making the service a stand alone QUANGO that could retain a high degree of local organisation, whilst at the same time benefitting from a coherent national image, together with some greater standardisation in service delivery. However, it must always be borne in mind that historically one of the main strengths of the Probation Service has been its ability to innovate and respond flexibly to changed needs and situations. Traditionally many significant developments in probation practice have been initiated by main grade officers on the ground identifying a problem and being allowed by a flexible management structure to experiment and develop an appropriate response. Should ant organisational changes result in over-centralised control, this vital and valuable ability will, in my view, be lost.

The Probation Service has always in my experience suffered from an image problem in that most people do not understand what we do, and in fairness the complexity and variation of tasks does not lend itself to easy explanation. In the absence of a popular TV drama series how does the public form a view of an important public service such as ours? Changing the name would, in my view, be counter-productive and only serve to increase confusion in the public's mind. The name is widely recognised, both nationally and internationally, has a proud history and is viewed with a high degree of professional integrity across many other disciplines in the legal, medical, social and academic fields. Of all the changes proposed, changing the name would in short be potentially the most damaging in terms of staff morale.

It is widely accepted that change can be a threatening and unsettling process, but it may also afford an opportunity by which a service can improve and develop. This is certainly my hope, but it should go without saying that change should only be considered if improvement can be demonstrated with conviction.

JRB 26/11/1998              

PSR Lament

Over the years we've covered this subject a number of times and once again it's become the focus of attention with a recent HMI report revealing that:-  

• Less than half of all inspected court reports were deemed to be sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision making.

• There were notable differences in quality between the types of court report. Oral reports met the overall quality judgement in only four out of 10 cases, short format reports in half of the cases, and standard delivery reports in more than six out of 10 cases. 

• Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making.

Right from the introduction the HMI report proudly confirms:-

The provision of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) has been a key part of the Probation Service’s work since its very earliest days, providing advice and information to help judges and magistrates decide upon the appropriate sentences for those appearing before the courts. The importance of this work has been highlighted as follows: 

‘it can be argued that the provision of reports for the courts is – in some ways – the most significant task. Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are the primary point of contact for sentencers, who are the main customers for probation work.’ (Mair, 2016).

so it might come as some surprise to many that over the last 20 years or so all manner of interventions and policies have conspired to downgrade the task, marginalise it within the criminal justice system and make the task as difficult and unwieldy as possible. Once a key part of every field Probation Officers role and often informed by their extensive knowledge of a person's offending history, the task is now performed by dedicated court-based staff with limited time and no prior knowledge beyond that possibly gleaned from crap IT systems such as OASys.

Oh and this again as outlined in the HMI report put a tin hat on the whole thing:-

Over the last decade, under the Transforming Summary Justice and Better Case Management efficiency programmes, and in line with long-standing efforts to reduce the length of the court process, there has been a move away from the more thorough and detailed standard delivery reports (with their typical turnaround of up to 15 working days) and towards fast delivery reports, first towards oral reports (which can often be delivered on the day of request or within 24 hours) and later to short format written reports (turnaround time of around five working days). Following concerns about the numbers of people being sentenced without any form of PSR, there has most recently been a focus on reversing this downward trend, particularly for cases where a community order was most likely; in 2014, 85 per cent of community orders had involved a PSR, which had reduced to 45 per cent by 2019. Research shows that, at least for community sentences, completion of the sentence is more likely when a PSR has been requested and provided than where it has not (Ministry of Justice, 2023).  

Very much late in the day it now seems that dots are being belatedly joined up and realisation dawning that much of the mess we now find ourselves in is a direct result of having so successfully done away with a vital element of probation's work in informing sensible sentencing decisions. But it's all too late as the damage has been done by the absurdity of moving skilled PO staff into prisons under OMiC, thus breaking down the local knowledge base and de-skilling PO staff in the field who now struggle with the whole report writing concept and task.

In my view this HMI aspiration will not improve the situation one bit:-

The measures set out in the 2021 Target Operating Model for probation services aim to increase both the number of cases that receive PSRs and the quality of those reports, leading to increased sentencer confidence in the probation service and potentially helping to reverse the recent decline in the use of accredited programmes (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2024). High-quality PSRs also have a positive impact in terms of supporting well-informed, analytical, and personalised post-sentence assessment and sentence planning, which is the starting point of the well-established and recognised ASPIRE model for case supervision.

Probation practitioners working in courts now use the Effective Proposal Framework (EPF) digital tool to ensure that ‘interventions recommendations and licence conditions address risk and need, are in line with policy and sentencing guidelines and supports consistency of practice, proportionality and the reduction of bias’ (HM Prison & Probation Service, 2021). The EPF tool contains a list of all available interventions and their eligibility criteria. Court officers can input the details of the individual before the court, such as risk levels, gender, age, geographical location and offence details, and the EPF provides a shortlist of interventions that are suitable and available to that individual.

Just more alphabet soup bloody processes and tools to add to an endless list of them, but failing utterly to understand and get to grips with fundamental flaws that now inhabit all aspects of probation work that have made it part of the problem and not any part of a solution. The new Labour Government promised a wide-ranging 'Probation Review' in their election manifesto and they'd better bloody get on with it before there's nothing much left of a once proud gold standard profession worth saving. 

At this point can I flag up the following quote from a blog from a former Probation Officer now working for Revolving Doors:-

As a former probation officer myself, I can say that probation officers took a real pride in these reports, and sentencers were immensely grateful for them. The other benefit was that if the person received a community order and was supervised by the probation officer that wrote the report, there was already a level of trust and good faith between them which helped set up a purposeful relationship which made meaningful work more likely.

I wholeheartedly agree! The blog continues:-

Failed reforms and increased time pressures

However, reforms aimed at expediting criminal case resolutions and improving efficiency, including initiatives like Transforming Summary Justice, promoted an increase in pre-sentence reports with quicker turnaround times. This shift led to a decline in the use of standard delivery reports, which typically take up to 15 working days, in favour of fast delivery reports, which take around five days, and oral reports, often completed on the same day or within 24 hours.

The problem with oral and fast delivery reports is that the interview happens over a very short period of time: often within the court building, with maybe just 20 minutes to spare and with the officer under pressure either to get back to the court and deliver the oral report, or to get to another person also waiting for their interview.

Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the officer is not able to build a relationship with the interviewee that allows them to extract the same level of information and so the assessment is less detailed and so, in our view, holds less validity.

The irony of this move towards speed is that it has happened in the context of mass court backlogs, meaning cases take longer than ever before. The rush to sentence is in contrast to the glacial progress of cases through the system.

Impact on the revolving door group

In 2022 we published the Probation Inquiry, exploring the experiences of those in the revolving door on probation, including in relation to court reports. Many people reflected on how rushed their interview felt, and how disappointed they were with the process.

However, others reported it as a transformative experience, where they had been able to disclose things they had never felt comfortable to before, including domestic abuse experiences, and others reported the report resulting to them finally getting them the interventions they needed. We think this demonstrates that report interviews need to be done over a good length of time – with opportunity for both parties to build a rapport.

It is worth noting that the Inspectorate also reported that Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making. It is our belief that short interviews do not allow for nuanced discussions around cultural and racial issues within the interview, disadvantaging those who already face discrimination within the justice system and society more broadly.

We believe the reduction in longform standard delivery pre-sentence reports has significantly contributed to the decline in the use of community orders by sentencers, with these decreasing by more than half (54%) between 2012 and 2022.

Reports no longer offer strong enough analysis as to why a specific community sentence will be so rehabilitative. This is just one of the reasons why we believe that the decline in standard delivery reports has significantly disadvantaged those in the revolving door group, whose offending is driven by unmet health and social needs.

Presenting for sentencing without the opportunity for previous convictions and former failed sentences to be contextualised seems more likely to end in a custodial sentence in our already calamitously overcrowded prisons, rather than with the targeted, rehabilitative non-custodial support our group so desperately need.

Return to more thorough PSRs to break the cycle

The findings of the Inspectorate’s report underscore the critical need for high-quality, detailed pre-sentence reports to support effective sentencing.

The shift towards faster, less comprehensive reports has unfortunately compromised the ability of sentencers to make fully informed decisions, particularly for those with complex needs, such as individuals struggling with substance use or mental health issues.

This trend not only undermines the goal of rehabilitation but also disproportionately impacts those who are already vulnerable, perpetuating the cycle of crisis and crime.

To break this cycle, it is imperative that we advocate for a return to thorough, personalised pre sentence reports that truly inform sentencing decisions and promote more equitable outcomes for all.

Kelly Grehan
Policy Manager

Probation Meltdown

The new government is slowly working through the mountain of problems created by the Tories, but the probation service cannot wait much longer for that promised 'review'. When is it being announced? The service is in meltdown, discussed here in some detail on PoliticsHome:- 

The Probation Service is "In Meltdown", Say Staff

Every probation service in the UK is failing to meet minimum standards as the service buckles under the weight of record staff shortages and huge caseloads, an investigation by The House magazine has revealed. Staff describe dealing with unsafe numbers of cases and a “s**t show” system “in meltdown” even before this month’s early release of thousands of prisoners to alleviate a jails crisis.

Some probation services are operating with less than half the number of required staff prompting grave internal doubts about their ability to cope with the increased demand.

And with the consequences for those subject to domestic abuse a particular concern prompted by the early release programme, The House has found every probation service in the UK has been criticised for failures – either protecting others from released detainees or ensuring those released are not abused themselves.

The probation service manages the cases of a quarter of million people, largely those who have been released from prison into the community or have been sentenced to community service. That is three times the number of those actually in prison, and yet it is one of the lowest-profile parts of the criminal justice system.

“It's a really difficult, complicated job,” says Martin Jones, the government’s chief inspector of probation. “I think it’s also under-appreciated because it’s such an invisible job.”

But while out of sight and out of mind, pressures have nevertheless been building relentlessly alongside those elsewhere. An analysis of the last 33 reports into every probation service inspected by the government watchdog – HM Inspectorate of Probation – over the last two and a half years reveals the extent of the crisis.

It shows every service has received a failing grade in that period – either ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’. Two got the lowest score possible. (Typically services are rated from 1 to either 21 or 27, two received a score or 1, a further five of just 2.)

Inspectors repeatedly identified understaffing and "unmanageable" workloads across the country, which had left services failing to do basic jobs like ensuring domestic abusers weren't contacting or threatening former victims, failing to safeguard children and systemically failing to assess the risk posed by former detainees to the public.

Every report found some sort of failure in regards to domestic violence – either failing to support those released from prison who could be victims to it or failing to risk assess those who previously were or could be potential perpetrators of abuse themselves.

Sometimes that wasn’t the direct fault of services themselves – at one unit in Liverpool inspectors found they had a backlog of 1,350 domestic abuse inquiries with the Merseyside Police that had gone unanswered.

At one failing probation service in Peterborough, “nowhere near enough attention” was being paid to monitoring the potential risks posed to the public by released offenders, with officers in 72 per cent of cases failing to properly protect the victims of released offenders.

Sickness and absence rates are so high in some services senior managers were having to handle the casework they were supposed to be overseeing – a situation inspectors called “unsustainable”.

“It’s clear if you read the reports that the probation service is under huge strain,” Jones tells The House. “Having worked in the criminal justice system for over 30 years, the pressures on the probation service are equally as bad as those on prisons by my assessment.”

“It's something that requires urgent attention from the government,” he adds.

At one service he reviewed in Essex, Jones says 55 per cent of the posts for probation officers were vacant, meaning the few staff actually still working there could be dealing with around twice their usual workload. Those kinds of massive staff vacancy rates were common across the country, particularly in big cities like London.

As staff shortages worsen caseloads increase leading in turn to worse staff retention. Some staff are said to be doing up to 200 per cent of their normal caseload as the system struggles to manage 250,000 people.

The personal toll on probation officers can be devastating. “When you see a colleague crying at a desk, that's not at all unusual in a probation office,” says John, who also tells us about another colleague who developed PTSD and attempted suicide from the scale and intensity of the work before being forced to take ill-health early retirement.

John is a near two decade veteran of the probation service who has spent most of his career in the North of England. We changed John’s name to allow him to speak freely and protect him from professional repercussions.

“Everything we do is superficial and last minute. If you've got way more work than you should do, you haven't got the time to sit and spend more than an hour with somebody,” he says.

“If you're always going at 100 miles an hour, you're not doing a considered piece of work when you write up their risk assessment, you’re doing a rush job because you know that you've got another three cases due by a certain time.”

Part of the fear with that kind of overwork is that it means officers are missing chances to stop people from committing serious crimes. Some 578 ‘serious further offences’ were recorded last year, a 10 per cent increase on the year before, though still lower than the record figures set during the system’s privatisation. While those are a small percentage of the total number of people released, each can have an untold, and preventable, impact on the victim or their families.

While the media narrative often focuses on that potential risk to the public, it often ignores the wider impact these failures have on the lives of those newly released from prison. Just under one in seven people are released from prison homeless in 2023-2024, an increase of a third on the year before.

“If probation officers do not have adequate time to address those sorts of issues, then inevitably there's a risk that it just becomes a revolving door,” says Jones. “And the reoffending rates in England and Wales are astonishingly high.”

Part of the reason for that huge increase in cases goes back to former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s “disastrous” partial privatisation of the service, which was overturned in 2019 after the number of serious offences like murder and rape by those on probation skyrocketed to record highs. As part of the privatisation deal, companies were forced to take on managing the wellbeing of previously unmonitored low level offenders on very short sentences. When it was renationalised, that new obligation was taken on by the public sector.

The problems in the probation service are heavily worsened by the problems across the rest of the justice system – from record court backlogs to prison overcrowding – which make managing cases a nightmare.

“The whole of the criminal justice system is in meltdown and we’re an important component of that,” says Ian Lawrence, general secretary of NAPO, the trade union for probation workers. He said the union has been repeatedly pushing for a Royal Commission into the failures across the justice system. “It’s a s**t show, basically,” he concludes.

When Labour first announced its plans to authorise the early release of prisoners, insiders say they had had a grim sense of deja vu.

Just two months earlier, the last government had (more quietly) expanded its own early prisoner release scheme, called ECSL, to mean countless more prisoners would be released early. Probation staff had little warning or time to prepare for releases and few criteria were applied on what type of prisoner might be released. It was labelled by NAPO at the time as an “unmitigated failure” and a trigger for potential strike action.

Lawrence says under that scheme probation staff felt “under pressure to sanction someone's release when they knew for a fact they were a high risk” to the public.

“The new scheme couldn’t be worse than ECSL,” John recalls. “But what they've done again is prioritise prison at the expense of probation.”

Under Labour’s programme which begins this month, prisoners will be eligible for early release after serving 40 per cent rather than 50 per cent of their sentences. In theory, certain serious offences, like those with domestic violence convictions would not be covered, but this month the government confirmed that was not always the case. If someone had a history of, say, serious sexual offences, but was currently serving a sentence for something else, they would be eligible.

Some 40,000 prisoners are estimated to benefit from the scheme, meaning the probation service’s caseload could eventually shoot up by as much as a fifth. Some 5,500 prisoners are expected to be released in the next two months alone.

The new scheme came with a promise to recruit 1,000 new probation officers by March 2025 to help deal with the new caseload and address staffing shortfalls in the service, though given it takes 18 months for an officer to qualify, it could be years before the service feels any benefit.

“I'm concerned about the potential impact that this will have, particularly in the short term,” says Jones. “Extra officers in a year or 18 months is great but you've got to through the next 18 months first.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson stressed that the government “inherited a prison system in crisis” that was “putting pressure on the wider justice system particularly probation staff”. They added they had been “forced into taking difficult but necessary action so it can keep locking up dangerous criminals and protect the public”.

All of those working in probation who spoke The House spoke said the scale of the crisis had made them rethink the entire structure and future of the probation service.

Jones says the “chronic” issues in the service meant the government needed to consider pruning the numbers or types of ex-detainees the service oversees as “it's probably better to do 70 per cent of the job really well than do 100 per cent of the job poorly”.

NAPO also calls on the government to end or phase out short-term prison sentencing.

“There are too many people in prison for offences that realistically, you should put them on a community order or some other form of reparation,” says NAPO general secretary Lawrence.

"We cannot keep doing this. The early release plans may make a difference to overcrowding in the short term, but it’s a palliative not a long-term cure.”

Andrew Kersley

Probation Staff Leaving

The plight of probation continues to get good media coverage. This from the Independent yesterday:-

Probation staffing crisis laid bare in damning reports as alarm sounded over public safety

Inspectors warn of ‘unsustainable and counterproductive’ situation as one local probation unit found to be 55 per cent short of officers

A string of new probation watchdog investigations have laid bare the staffing crisis blighting the service’s ability to supervise offenders in the community and keep the public safe. With prisons already dangerously full, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood announced this month that some 5,500 prisoners will be freed 40 per cent of the way into their sentence, starting from September.

But questions have been raised over how the probation service will be able to cope with this new influx of offenders who will pass into their care, amid warnings that the early release scheme enacted by the Tories – which saw 10,000 inmates freed in nine months – had caused “absolute mayhem” for the service.

Each of the four reports published by HM Inspectorate of Probation in the week following Ms Mahmood’s announcement highlighted understaffing as an issue which is already undermining probation workers’ efforts to keep the public safe.

In Essex South, the watchdog found just 45 per cent of the required number of probation officers in post – something inspectors said was understandably hampering the probation unit’s ability to supervise offenders.

As a result, the delivery of probation services in Essex South were judged to be to a level sufficient to effectively support public safety in as little as 23 per cent of cases examined by inspectors. Improvements were also needed in assessments to assess and manage the risks offenders posed in the community.

Similarly, in Northamptonshire, the probation officer vacancy rate was 40 per cent and workloads were too high as a result, with a situation further exacerbated by staff absences. Staff spoke of feeling overwhelmed and uncertain about what to prioritise – which had a detrimental effect on risk management, inspectors said.

In Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, inspectors warned that “almost all the assessments we inspected were insufficient in relation to keeping people safe”, with senior supervising officers forced to handle cases themselves because of staff shortages and “very high” sickness rates, which further reduced capacity.

“The situation was unsustainable and counterproductive,” inspectors warned.
Inspectors in Hertfordshire warned that the probation unit’s staffing levels meant workloads too high across all grades. They said managers were signing off risk assessments which too often did not incorporate key information related to domestic abuse and child safeguarding.
The findings came as HM chief inspector Martin Jones reiterated the stark reality that 30 out of the 31 local probation units inspected across England and Wales in 2022-23 were judged to be either “inadequate” or “requiring improvement”.

While the government has pledged to have 1,000 extra trainee probation officers in place by next spring to help the service cope with the emergency prisoner early release scheme, Mr Jones warned it would take time for new recruits to “bed down” and gain the experience needed to supervise offenders.

Thousands of probation staff have left the service over the past two years, with almost two-thirds of the 359 officers who quit in the year to March 2023 taking with them five or more years of experience. As of March, 5,113 full-time probation officers were in post – 25 per cent below the required staffing level of 6,794.

One officer who joined the probation service as a “job for life” in 2018 told The Independent last year that she now reluctantly planned to quit, saying: “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.”

Responding to the four new inspection reports, Tania Bassett of the probation union Napo told The Independent: “The staffing crisis in probation is not going to go away anytime soon. Too few staff and dangerously high workloads lead to increased sickness of staff which only compounds the issue.”

Ms Bassett added: “As we enter the summer holidays, staffing will be at a critical state with many regions seeing their workforce reduce by 50 per cent as many people take annual leave.”

The timing of the government’s new prisoner early release scheme in September means that the pre-release work required for cases will need to be completed over this period – which “will only exacerbate already high workloads and cause additional stress to staff”, Ms Bassett warned.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The prison system is in crisis which is putting significant pressure on the whole justice system. We are gripping the situation and supporting our hardworking staff by improving training and recruiting 1,000 more probation officers nationally to deliver robust supervision and protect the public."

This Simply Cannot Go On

Yesterday HMI Charlie Taylor lost his patience with HMPPS and the Minister Alex Chalk MP and wrote him a letter. Probation staff must continue to reflect on how much longer they can possibly continue to be part of an increasingly dysfunctional and abusive HMPPS, especially when there are over 5,300 bureaucrats just a couple of miles away at HQ doing what exactly? 

Dear Secretary of State, 

Urgent Notification: HMP Wandsworth 

In accordance with the Protocol between HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Ministry of Justice dated October 2019, I am writing to you to invoke the Urgent Notification process following our unannounced inspection of HMP Wandsworth between 22nd April and 2nd May 2024. The protocol sets out that this letter will be placed in the public domain, and that the Secretary of State commits to respond publicly within 28 days. 

Wandsworth is a prison that is still reeling from the very high-profile escape in 2023. Our findings suggest that security remains a significant concern, although failings were evident in almost all aspects of the prison’s operation. This was reflected in our healthy prison test scores of poor for “safety”, “respect” and “purposeful activity” and not sufficiently good in “preparation for release”. 

When we last inspected Wandsworth in September 2021, we reported serious concerns about outcomes for prisoners and at that time I cautioned against plans to increase the prison roll:

“Leaders in this crumbling, overcrowded, vermin-infested prison will need considerable ongoing support from the prison service…It is hard to see how HMP Wandsworth’s limited progress can be sustained if prisoner numbers in this jail are allowed to increase as they are scheduled to do next April.” 

The population at the time of that inspection was 1,364. When we returned this month, it had risen to 1,513. 

I have issued an Urgent Notification for the following reasons:

• Despite a high-profile escape from Wandsworth in September 2023, inspectors found significant weaknesses in many aspects of security. Wings were chaotic and staff across most units were unable to confirm where all prisoners were during the working day. There was no reliable roll that could assure leaders that all prisoners were accounted for. Given the recent escape, it was unfathomable that leaders had not focussed their attention on this area. 

• There had been 10 self-inflicted deaths since the last inspection, seven of which had occurred in the last 12 months. The rate of self-harm was high and rising, and yet around 40% of emergency cell bells were not answered within five minutes. 

• Overall rates of violence, including serious assaults, had increased since the last inspection and were higher than most similar prisons. In our survey, 69% of prisoners said they had felt unsafe at Wandsworth. 

• Over half (51%) of prisoners surveyed said it was easy to get illicit drugs and the smell of cannabis was ubiquitous. Although leaders had identified this issue as presenting the highest level of security risk, they had suspended drug testing between August 2023 and January 2024. In the most recent confirmed random drug test results (February 2024), 44% of prisoners tested positive. 

• Wandsworth was badly overcrowded and has a transient population, with more than half on remand. Living conditions were very poor, cells were cramped and ill-equipped, and the prison was still too dirty. The fabric of the buildings and facilities including showers and heating still needed significant investment to bring them up to a decent standard. 

• In our survey only 41% of prisoners said that staff treated them with respect, significantly lower than in comparable prisons. Very limited time out of cell, absent staff, and a failure to deliver any key work reduced the opportunity to develop meaningful relationships on wings. 

• A substantial lack of work and education spaces and poor use of those that were available meant there was very little purposeful activity. Most prisoners were unemployed and spent over 22 hours a day locked up.

 • Prisoners had no idea when or if they would be unlocked each day or whether they would get access to fresh air. Life on residential units was unpredictable and confusing for staff and prisoners alike. 

• Consistent failures to enable access to healthcare services due to prison staff absences resulted in important assessment and treatment interventions being curtailed. Clinic non-attendance rates were high at around 24%. The costly new health centre that was supposed to open in the summer of 2022 was still unused. 

• Despite a full complement of officers, sickness, restricted duties, and training commitments meant that over a third could not be deployed to operational duties each day; this led to curtailed regimes, cross-deployment, and burnt out staff. 

• Inexperience across every grade of operational staff was preventing them from bringing about much needed change. Staff were not wilfully neglectful, they simply did not understand their role and they lacked direction, training, and consistent support from leaders. 

The poor outcomes we found at Wandsworth stemmed from poor leadership at every level of the prison, from HMPPS and the Ministry of Justice, leading to systemic and cultural failures that have led to this shocking decline. There was a degree of despondency amongst prisoners that I have not come across in my time as Chief Inspector.

Many well-meaning and hard-working leaders and staff persevered at Wandsworth, but they were often fighting against a tide of cross-cutting, intractable problems that require comprehensive, long-term solutions. 

For this troubled prison to begin to recover, Wandsworth needs permanent experienced leaders at all levels who are invested in the long-term future of the prison to improve security, safety and guide their less experienced colleagues. 

Yours sincerely 

Charlie Taylor

--oo00oo--

The Governing Governor having resigned her post, but professionally decided to stay on pending a new appointment, the Prison Governors Association were quick to respond:-

PRISON GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION – URGENT NOTIFICATION AT HMP WANDSWORTH  

The decision by Charlie Taylor, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons to issue an Urgent Notification (UN) at HMP Wandsworth will be of no surprise to the Government, Ministry of Justice or to the Senior Leadership of His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS).

The Prison Governors’ Association (PGA) has been highlighting the challenges facing our members in Wandsworth and other prisons for years. We are in a position now, where the levers needed to relieve the stress facing many prisons are not available. Although the chronic shortage of staff across the estate has reduced it remains stubbornly high in some prisons. HMP Wandsworth was built in 1851. It has cells designed to hold 964 prisoners. At the time of the inspection, it held around 1500. 

The Governor and her team are in an almost impossible situation, trying to maintain security, order and control whist helping prisoners to reduce the chances of reoffending on release in a prison holding more than 500 more men than it was designed to hold in Victorian times in buildings that haven’t been properly maintained by the Ministry of Justice for the last 15 years. The Governor had decided to leave HMPPS early in the 2024 and resigned during the inspection. This is undoubtedly due in part to the personal toll that running a prison like Wandsworth in current times takes on those who do so. 

The biggest lever for reducing a prison’s population is no longer available as it was when the UN process was introduced several years ago. Then, following a UN, prisons reduced their population by hundreds, allowing a process of improvement to take place. The prison population is around 88,000 in an estate designed to hold less than 80,000, and it is projected to continue to grow. Government policy of locking up more people for longer, making it more difficult to release them, has paralysed a system to the point it is unable to make a difference for prisons which face the gravest of challenges. It is directly impacting on the safety of prisoners, staff and the public. The impact on the health and wellbeing of prison leaders and their staff working in such an environment is significant. It is grossly unfair that our members must shoulder the burden of a crisis which is not of their making. Neither is it of the making of the Senior Leadership of HMPPS, who still have the confidence of the PGA. It is the Government that needs to act, and act now. 

Building more prisons whilst failing to invest in the existing prison estate simply to allow more and more people to be sent to prison is a mistake, it does not effectively protect the public. Ministers have been warned of the consequences at Wandsworth and across the wider prison estate. On sending their report to the Minister in September 2023 the Chair of the Independent Monitoring Board at Wandsworth, Tim Aikens, said: 

“Recent events at Wandsworth have demonstrated the shortcomings of the prison system that the IMB has been highlighting repeatedly for many years. Prisoners are being failed and most have a severely reduced chance of rehabilitation upon release. We are told there is significant investment in the prison system, but we see little evidence of this in Wandsworth.” 

The PGA call on the Government and Opposition to have the courage to move away from being simply “tough on crime” to putting resources into public services, such as mental health and drug treatment, to reduce the burden on our prisons and really being “tough on the causes of crime.” This simply cannot go on.