Guest Blog 100

Probation Past but not Forgotten 

Just to be upfront with my readers this blog is focussed upon the use and development of Business Processes and Computer Systems within the National Probation Service (NPS) and then a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) being based upon my working experiences from 2006 to 2016. I am not a qualified Probation Officer. But I have a long career prior to joining probation in the private sector in Business and Computer systems. First employed in 2006 within the NPS West Midland Trust, Learning and Development Unit, Selly Oak, Birmingham as a Business Support Training Officer. 

Then I jointly supported the Learning and Development Unit and the Central Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU) initially supporting the System Testing and Implementation of Delius. Then in 2013 I was appointed as a Transformation Administration Manager within the Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU). I was then transferred to a CRC in 2014 before being made redundant in 2016. 

I cannot blog on the current (2024) HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) since I have been outside the Probation Service since 2016. So essentially it is more of a historical record but the effort to write it is based upon me wanting to communicate on “a lessons learnt” basis that may influence and benefit those currently working within the HMPPS. It is also an historical record of the events I experienced at the NPS and then CRC.

So why start blogging on Probation after 8 years outside of the service?

When I was at Probation, like many others, I followed Jim Brown daily since he was telling the “truth” particularly through the blitzkrieg period of change. But over the last 8 years I have only on rare occasions popped onto his blog to see how things are going at Probation, now the HMPPS. So having done one of my normal LinkedIn posts that covered a bit about Probation, I was surprised to get a personal message to call him. Which I did and we had a brief chat on Monday 23/09/24. He asked me if I had any more relevant contributions. I explained that obviously all my experiences are now from the 2006 – 2016 period so lacking relevance to HMPPS in 2024. 

Then it occurred to both of us during our conversation that those experiences might help those trying to sort out HMPPS today. I explained that particularly my NPS experience, not my CRC experience, was a very positive part of my career, particularly in respect of the people with whom I worked. Whilst my experience of the Business Systems and Computer Systems was just the opposite. But I had started in 2006 with the best intentions of improving both of these aspects and to be perfectly frank, after 10 years of hard motivated work, I achieved nothing. I don’t know another part of my career where it was so difficult to influence and effect change to Business Processes and Computer Systems. So if any contribution on here could help those now within the HMPPS family achieve these changes now, I wouldn’t feel my 10 years was such a waste of effort. My commitment can only be a positive and constructive one since I don’t do negative or political.

So I walked out of the Probation Offices in Central Birmingham for the last time on the 3rd July 2016, having been disposed of by Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP), a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) that was now trying to run the Probation Private Services for Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and the West Midlands. I was deemed redundant and my services were no longer required. Not the best of timing for them or me. In their case with me having a long career prior to Probation in Business Systems design and implementation in the Private Sector, they needed me and others like me more than ever with the chaos now being unleashed. Instead they were dependant on the ”all knowing” but “knowing nothing” highly paid consultant swarms now descended on Probation. Many just out of university but deemed chargeable to the Ministry of Justice no doubt with a cashback into the RRP coffers. But it also has to be acknowledged that there were some very smart experienced consultants with some clearly wanting to support our side of how we wanted change implemented. That is carefully and progressively.

These consultants actually listened and didn’t just feedback but actively joined us in trying to get some constructive steer on the changes themselves and the rate of change being planned. They also took some risks within their own Consultant Management Companies, who had won the lucrative change management contracts from the MoJ, in supporting our side of the story. But unfortunately they weren’t listened to either, so blitzkrieg commenced at pace.

The tide of change from Government and the MoJ was too strong and too fast for all of us to contain or control it. They had enforced a blitzkrieg approach to changing Probation. Probation had established its fundamental principles over 100 years and these were already being improved upon as a result of the Carter Report, by a Probation Officer, and its implementation through the 2006 to 2010 period. Things were improving in a Japanese style of incremental improvements like the national use of a new Offender Management System called Delius and access to the Police ViSOR System. 

Although OASys was in most need of re-engineering it was not on the to do list. Probation had never faced a blitzkrieg Government attack before and it was very ill prepared to counter it. Other Government Departments, particularly our own HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) never came in with any support since whilst we were under attack they could standby, avoiding being attacked themselves. Needless to say HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was also being attacked under austerity principles with many local court closures impacting the application of good and tried local justice principles. The blitzkrieg approach funded by the Government threw money at the private sector to establish the principles of probation moving to the private sector in the form of the CRC’s. So I was transferred to a CRC.

We CRC staff, being ex- NPS staff, were now considered only eligible to be treated with a sort of private sector employment status. Essentially exiled out into the wilderness. With no doubt their planned lowering of pay rates to reflect our drop in both economic and social status. Yes I was now employed by a new lowly entity in the Government MoJ come Probation hierarchy, which was soon to be dropped a peg down on bloc below the unit with the lock and keys the Prisons which were to upstage Probation in the political hierarchy creating the illogical HMPPS.

NPS Induction Training in West Midland taught the hierarchy where the Courts were the very top, supported by the Probation Service with the Prisons as a service locking them up as punishment and to protect the public. Whilst the Carter Report rightly recommended the Prison’s rightly focussed on rehabilitation whilst in a custody setting. Training Prison Officers on Rehabilitation Practices, we were always amazed at how enthusiastic they were about acquiring these new skills and looking forward to applying them within their prison settings. Just the locking up although critical was very boring and contributing to prisoners futures much more rewarding. Probation was a highly respected Court Service which has been that way almost from the beginnings of Probation as detailed in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Totally integrated into the Court System allowing them to administer justice and protect the public. Probation was a service geographically distributed in the community operating in support of the Courts as a Court Service.

So that was it. Probation was over for me. I had tried very hard with many other like minded and motivated people to get the Probation Business Processes into a better state. We even organised a group of Trusts covering London, Devon and Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midland to establish a common National Business Standards System on the TIBCO Nimbus business mapping product we all had installed and were using daily. Although we tried we got little support from the MoJ in terms of this initiative which was in fact seeded from the bottom of the organisation upwards. Never the right way to get something established. 

The West Midlands had already led on Business Change with its Modelling District Projects but it was only when we combined with the Staffordshire Trust that we gained access to their more advanced use of TIBCO Nimbus which we quickly adopted. Obviously other Trusts had quite independently taken to using TIBCO Nimbus no doubt being targeted by the TIBCO sales force. Whilst we had some MoJ meetings in London where they were impressed by our TIBCO Nimbus efforts, it was never formally adopted and was not included in any MoJ Directives to the Trusts.

I suspect many in Probation may not even be aware of this TIBCO Nimbus initiative taking place in some Trusts. Even within the TIBCO Nimbus active Trusts their own staff were not always aware of its purpose and presence. Not being a subject included in any National Probation Communications for many using it was not seen as a priority. There was certainly no national sign off of the TIBCO Nimbus Business Processes thereby not making them the de facto way of working for everybody. It was a mess. Had it been better established it may have helped us better deflect some of the blitzkrieg attack on our undocumented working practices. We really had nothing concrete or national to defend ourselves with in respect of standardised business processes. With no defences it was inevitable we would lose the battle.

But the one last stand I took supported by my Business Process Design colleague along with surprisingly an RRP Consultant, was to try and convince the Reducing Reoffending Partnership Board to use our Business Processes already mapped in TIBCO Nimbus as a basis for building the new business models brought about by the creation of the CRC’s It made so much sense. This proposal to the RRP CRC Board was dated the 9th July 2015 and I still have a copy I can share on here in the future. I also initiated a brilliant commercial negotiation with TIBCO to virtually have free use of Nimbus for a period to get it established. What was there not to like. But the proposal got rejected by the RRP CRC Board.

The TIBCO Nimbus Servers were torn out of their server racking and sent for scrap. Somewhere I have photos of them lying on the scrap pile representing many years of process design and data entry work. Then beyond belief they started a Business Process Mapping Project to go around collecting all the information again from relevant Probation staff groups and then re mapping it all in Microsoft Visio a product considered very unfriendly for everyday business users being more aligned with the needs of IT Staff.

So to the end of my story at Probation with the CRC RRP making me redundant on 3rd July 2016. Exactly 1 year after our TIBCO Nimbus proposal to the RRP CRC Board had been rejected. My work Nimbus colleague was kept on to continue but without having TIBCO Nimbus and having to return to using Microsoft Visio the objective of installing business systems onto all employee desk tops where they would be used daily by the service was now impossible. My Nimbus work colleague soon left since Business Process Planning was not a priority in the midst of all the firefighting now required to maintain some sort of Probation Service.

Now just to complete the conversation I had with Jim Brown. He said write me a “taster” and I will see if I want to link to it. This is that taster. But included in it is a early High Level Flowchart for use in the West Midlands that I produced way back to illustrate the importance of having a holistic view of all the Business Systems.

The truth is I have many other resources that are now dated like all the original TIBCO Nimbus Process Maps extracted in a PowerPoint format. Along with various other methodologies and techniques we developed and used like iPresentation and iProcess along with Work Instructions. In fact lots of my historic bits and pieces accumulated over 10 years at Probation that may possibly interest probation staff historically or maybe in some cases prove worth reusing today in the HMPPS.

But to be effective though what Probation needs is what my last American Company had which was what they called its own university (Pollak University). In fact it wasn’t a University in our sense of the use of the word meaning a verified academic learning institution. But it was where all product knowledge, manufacturing knowledge, research knowledge, business processes knowledge and computer systems knowledge was documented, co-ordinated, researched and communicated. It had dedicated librarianship, research and training capabilities. Research papers could be submitted and reviewed and so forth. Essentially a “one stop” place for all knowledge and processes within the business entity. So they called it a University. 

Now if this blog got to the MoJ and it triggered them to setup up a “Probation University” that would justify all the 10 years I spent and enjoyed at the National Probation Service. The first thing that needs researching, documenting and standardising and communicating is all the Business Processes. This is about adopting an ideology that Probation can have a common set of Business Processes applied right across all geographical and business areas. To make it happen it needs a champion in this ideology and that champion being in a position at the top with the powers to implement it. There is an argument that computer systems in the future will have built into them workflow principles and this has been accelerated by the AI developments. But until these systems are developed and made available it is vital that all Business Processes are standardised and documented in a user friendly way.

Some may consider the Probation Institute established in 2014 could act like the Probation University I have proposed. My view is it should definitely form part of the Probation University. But a concern might be that once it became MoJ financed would it as a "membership" financed organisation have its independence compromised. I don't see it this way. The membership of the Probation Institute are working at the front line of the Service and their constructive contribution is vital and should be within the proposed Probation University framework. 

But the scope of the Probation University is much larger than that of the Probation Institute. The Probation University defines and drives the operational activities of Probation both staff and systems. I appreciate it's a much used cliche to suggest we should all operate like Amazon and some strong views exist suggesting you cannot apply their methods of effectively shipping goods to essentially the practice of a social science. All I would just say is let an Amazon IT system designer with their keystroke counting audit techniques and workflow engineering skills redesign OASys. The time we waste on OASys could then be spent with our clients (Do we call them clients or offenders these days?) doing our social science best practices more effectively.

Within the Probation University the study of Social and Behavioural Sciences should far exceed the focus on Business and Computer Systems. They are our prime activity. It is what we do working with our clients. So Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology along with an endless list of other subjects that need to be included within the Probation University framework. If this blog post achieved the setting up of a Probation University whilst I am now outside the organisation it would be amazing since I could never achieve it whilst working within the organisation.

Now to share with you a High Level Offender Management Vertical Workflow Map which is now 12 years old covering Offender Management Process Flows (circa 2012) within the Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. I am sure this could be edited in less than a few hours to accurately represent current HMPPS Probation Business Processes since I suspect much of the supporting documentation (paperwork) has remained unchanged. Although the computer record updating may have changed. I just don't know. Maybe it is a starting point to commencing Business Workflow and Process Mapping. Certainly Indeterminate Prison Sentencing has changed with the removal of IPP's by coincidence in 2012 (As usual just after the map was drawn !!!!) although their removal was from memory not retrospective. If it generates any interest I have another High Level Horizontal Workflow Map I can share showing the relationships between all those parties linked to Probation once again somewhat dated but easily updated. 

Enjoy, 

Banno

Link to High Level Map below.

Once launched use the normal "pinch-to-zoom" gesture to zoom in and zoom out of the PDF to read the small print.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pw4dIYts48SVHQxhE1iKxl5r6eil4RJE/view?usp=sharing

Probation : A Profession?

Thanks go to regular reader 'Getafix for pointing us in the direction of the following Position Paper just published by the Probation Institute:-

Professionalism and Probation

Introduction 

This Position Paper is a contribution to the important discussions about professionalism in probation. The service is taking steps towards formalising the professional status of practitioners through a licence to practice, codes of conduct and values, continuous professional development and registration. We hope that this paper will stimulate discussion in the probation service and among the many various partner agencies, about the meaning of professionalism in probation. 

The Probation Institute is developing a sister paper on the relationships between regulation, scrutiny, inspection, accountability and individual practice, particularly in the context of risk assessment, risk management and victims.

Professionalism and probation over time 

It is interesting to note that the status of probation as a profession has been contested throughout its history. Writing in 1985, in the third of his four papers discussing the evolution of probation practice, Bill McWilliams noted the resistance to professional training for probation officers between the 1920’s and the 1960’s, for fear that professional status may diminish the zeal of the original police court missionaries. Even at time when a professional social work qualification was required to practise as a probation officer, there was no mechanism for setting standards for probation work, nor of regulation and monitoring of practice. And, despite the job role requiring professional qualification, the Probation Service did not have a formal process of registration and monitoring for practitioners, in the way that health roles have always had, and which social work and psychology, for instance, do now.

Following the demise of the reorganisation of probation services through Transforming Rehabilitation, the issue of regulation for probation work was resurrected. Writing in 2021, The Centre for Justice Innovation made the case for professional registration of probation work, and identified the key factors which it considered define a profession; a professional register conferring a licence to practice; a code of practice and associated standards; and an independent body which regulates practitioners who are subject to registration. (Bowen, 2021.) 

It is critical to note that, historically, professional status and regulation evolved out of the recognition that professional roles conferred significant responsibilities on practitioners working with people who could be defined as vulnerable – patients in the case of medicine, children and vulnerable adults in the case of social work, and, for probation, people who are doubly vulnerable, whose status as probation supervisees may well have been informed by their own experience of trauma, and, in addition, who are involuntary users of the Service. In this context, it is important to note that people convicted of crime may also be victims themselves - a commonplace scenario in probation work, and one which confers additional vulnerabilities, requiring corresponding additional responsibilities of integrity and professionalism of probation practitioners. 

The Probation Institute came into existence primarily to seek to enable the formal registration and monitoring of probation practitioners, via an externally regulated independent body, and that remains a priority.

The PI is aware of the recently formed Internal Register for Probation Practice, and that the aim of The National Probation and Prison Service is to formally register all practice roles within the Service. This position paper seeks to look more broadly at professionalism in probation, and to consider key aspects of what being a professional probation practitioner actually means. 

Concepts of professionalism 

The concept of professionalism, and what being a professional means, has been similarly contested over time. The range of perspectives includes seeing professional status as a mechanism for protecting an elite and exclusive group of practitioners. Conversely – and perhaps more helpfully, in terms of probation practice – Elliott Freidson, who has written extensively about professionalism, defines a profession as ‘an occupation that controls its own work, (is) organised by a special set of institutions, and sustained in part by a particular ideology of expertise and service.’ (Freidson, 1994, 10.) 

Clearly, Probation practice does not wholly control its own work, being subject to government policy, for instance, with regard to early release from prison; the sentencing decisions of the Courts; and the workings of the parole process. But the idea of probation work being ‘organised by a special set of institutions’ seems very apt, and may include formal institutions, notably the order of the court which generates the work of the Probation Service; and the organisational practices, often through regulations, which define what practitioners do – such as the induction process for supervisees, systems of reporting and of breach and recall, and the ways in which people are assessed via the utilisation of the Offender Assessment System. (OASys.)

It is also essential to acknowledge the key work of The Probation Service with people who are victims of offending. Alongside working with people who are direct victims of crime, and their families, it is important to reinforce the point made previously, that a significant number of people subject to statutory supervision are, or have been, victims of crime themselves. In this complex scenario, due process demands that victims are treated in their own right, with the acknowledgement that victims hold a different role and place in the court process; and that care needs to be taken not to blame a victim of crime, possibly through prejudice, and inappropriate assumptions and stereotypes as to who constitutes a ‘legitimate’ victim.

Listening to the accounts of victims, and validating their experience, is key to their capacity to move forward; and Restorative Justice, pioneered by The Probation Service, can be a valuable process for both perpetrators and victims, in making sense of their differing experiences, and so to enable positive change. Core probation skills are needed to undertake this delicate and sensitive work, alongside specialist knowledge, and experience, of the contexts in which people have become victims of crime, particularly those from BAME groups, victims of domestic abuse and people who may have been trafficked, or are seeking asylum, and may be in breach of the law themselves. As part of its role in seeking to establish professional status for probation work, The Probation Institute also works with partner organisations on these issues; and is committed to sharing learning regarding situations that victims may find themselves in.

Professional identity and professional practice 

With regard to professional status, It is significant that, consistently over time, research with probation practitioners has concluded that, amongst other traits, they perceive themselves to be professionals, characterised by a deeply held professional identity, and which is justified by the specialist expertise and skills of probation work, manifest in the one to one supervisory relationship (the ‘therapeutic alliance’) with the person on probation; and by collaboration with other agencies of the criminal justice system, notably the courts, but also via, for example, MAPPA arrangements. 

Additionally, it is important to focus on the mental and emotional demands of probation work, for which possessing a sense of professional identity may be key to navigating the challenges of the role. Stuart Collins, writing in 2016, i.e. during the significant period of Transforming Rehabilitation, described what he termed ‘professional commitment:’ by which he means the investment of personal resources, or what is often called emotional labour, of service before self; a strong sense of community with peers – what could colloquially be termed as one’s ‘tribe;’ opportunities for progression in the professional role; a sense of autonomy; and confidence in the organisation to which practitioners belong. (Collins, 2016, 32.)

This sense of professional identity is strongly related to and underpinned by a commitment to what are perceived to be the values of probation work. Professor Emeritus Rob Canton (2011) discusses these ‘traditional probation values’ as including: location in and engagement with communities; social inclusion and reintegration; restorative justice; a belief in the possibility of change; and recognition of the role of social capital in desistance. A study from 2013, conducted by Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall, discussed the persistence of related beliefs over time, noting the significance of themes such as a belief in the capacity of people to change; satisfaction in the job, which was closely linked to a sense of autonomy; and practitioners finding meaning for their work through their professionalism. A particular concept which may find resonance with practitioners is Mawby and Worrall’s discussion of ‘responsible creativity,’ the capacity to work in chaotic and challenging situations, to think on one’s feet, and to continually rethink practice in order to engage the people subject to supervision, and sustain the overarching priorities of effectively assessing and managing risk. 

Two other elements seem to be critical to professionalism in probation work – reflective practice, and anti-discriminatory practice. 

Reflective practice derives from the work of Donald Schon, who formulated the notions of the reflective practitioner, and of reflection in action, as key to professional roles in a range of settings, including social work, education, and criminal justice. He identified what he described as the ‘messes’ where practitioners operate, which inform day to day practice (Schon, 2016: 42). He stated that: 

‘There are those who choose the swampy lowlands. They deliberately involve themselves in messy but crucially important problems and, when asked to describe their methods of inquiry, they speak of experience, trial and error, intuition, and muddling through.’ (Schon, 1991: 43, emphasis mine)

Schon further argues that, within this context, each professional relationship will generate different problems and challenges. This demands specific approaches and skills of the practitioner, working in a febrile and possibly volatile context; but, also, that each encounter presents new situations for learning by both practitioner and supervisee. (Schon, 1991: 155).

In a paper from 2022, written shortly after the reintegration of probation work into The Probation Service, Anne Burrell suggested that Schon’s approach ‘pretty accurately describes the experience of being a probation practitioner. And, consequently and inevitably, a typical day in the working life of any practitioner is unlikely to follow whatever is mapped out in their diary at its outset. This capacity to operate within an incessant state of flux requires particular skills and attributes – as does operating in an environment with scant rewards, whether financial or appreciative; and a setting where the outcomes of the work may be opaque for some considerable time.’ (Burrell, 2022, 441.) In other words, it may not be possible to know whether probation intervention is successful by the end of a period of supervision – the rewards for positive change may well come much later on in a person’s life. 

Relatedly, reflection affords consideration of the practitioner’s own prejudices and ideologies. Ainslie identifies that reflective practice enables practitioners to challenge their own knowledge base and assumptions - arguably, as well as the assumptions of their organisation, particularly with regard to ‘what works.’ In this context of reflective practice enabling a challenge to both personal and organisational prejudices, it is of note that, in 2021, HMIP published a highly critical report into the ways in which probation services were working with Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) service users, as well as the experiences of BAME staff. This report concluded that, subsequent to Transforming Rehabilitation, The Probation Service had retreated from anti-discriminatory practice; and that there was therefore much work to be undertaken in this regard.

It is inevitable, therefore, that the processes of professional development for probation practitioners remain constant throughout their working lives, as probation work evolves and changes; and as the context and demands of the role are required to continually adapt and reframe. 

Conclusion 

Writing in 2018, the late Paul Senior, former Professor of Probation Studies at Sheffield Hallam University, and also former Chair of the Probation Institute, argued robustly that ‘probation is a profession – never let that go.’ In that article, and elsewhere, he worked to achieve for a Regulatory Body for Probation and Rehabilitation staff. 

And Gwen Robinson, who has researched extensively into probation work, suggests that, as the Probation Service seeks to establish itself as a unified service, key to its effectiveness will be the ways in which the Service addresses ‘issues of agency, identity, and voice.’ (Robinson, 2021:152). Significantly, she suggests that the proposed professionalisation of the service, via a professional register, is one device to seek to gain moral legitimacy within the criminal justice system. Additionally, Robinson suggests that it is the interface on a local level, with other agencies, which will provide the locations where ‘probation work is real and tangible, and where perceptions of legitimacy will be formed.’ (Robinson, 2021,161.)

So, how can professionalism in probation be summarised? The focus could be on the formal organisational processes of professional practice, and the value of monitoring and regulating probation work, and probation practitioners. These are important issues, and the landscape regarding professional registration seems likely to continue to change in the immediate future.

But it is equally important to consider the meanings of professionalism for probation practitioners on the personal level, in terms of what probation practice is, and how it is conducted. 

Firstly, it seems unavoidable that a key component of probation work is that of forming and sustaining relationships, between probation practitioners and the people whom they are supervising, as well as with victims of crime; other criminal justice agencies, primarily at a local level; and, importantly, with local communities. Professionalism encompasses how practitioners present themselves, in a range of settings. It includes skills of reflection, which enable practitioners to identify, and to address unconscious biases. Professionalism and reflection can generate an awareness of issues of power in the supervisory relationship, and the impact of practitioner decision-making on the lives of the people who are being supervise. These qualities can similarly enable effective practice in work with victims of crime. 

In their 2013 study, Rob Mawby and Anne Worrall (2013: 154) refer to probation as ‘an honourable profession.’ They concluded their book on their project by asserting that: 

‘It would be courageous …….to respect that this work inevitably involves a willingness to work holistically and optimistically, though not naively, with uncertainty, ambivalence and (to a degree) failure. Someone has to do it.’ 

And that seems to be a great summary of what probation work is all about...

Probation work is challenging, rewarding, frustrating, satisfying, and sometimes downright scary. But it is intrinsically worthwhile, with the strength of probation practice coming from the people doing the job. The Probation Institute is firmly of the belief that proper professional recognition, independently supported and sustained, will be key to the future effectiveness of this vital work. 

Summary Points 

1. The Probation Service has been in existence for over a century; yet probation work has never held formal professional status. 

2. Probation work inevitably involves working with vulnerable people, whose risks and needs mean that they require effective interventions, with a focus on safeguarding. 

3. Formal professional recognition would provide a mechanism for independent effective monitoring of probation practice, and of probation practitioners. 

4. The registration process would enable application of a code of ethics, which would place responsibilities and duties on the practitioner, whilst also providing protections from unethical or dubious policy decisions. 

5. The current landscape for probation work, and the breadth and gravity of probation practice, including serious organised crime, politically motivated offending, and cases of serious harm and abuse, demands that practitioners working in these settings are professionally qualified, and supported in their role.

References 

Ainslie S: (2020) ‘A time to reflect?’ Probation Quarterly 17: 9–12. London: Probation Institute.

Bowen P. (2021). 'Delivering a smarter approach. Probation professionalisation.' Centre for Justice Innovation. (Online.) (Accessed on 18 September 2022.)  

https://justiceinnovation.org/publications/ delivering-smarter-approach-probation-professionalisation 

Burrell, A. (2022). ‘The Reflective Practitioner in Transition. Probation work during reintegration of probation services in England and Wales.’ Probation Journal 69 (4) pp 434 – 451. 

Canton 2011: (2011). Probation: working with offenders. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Collins S: (2016). 'Commitment and probation work in England and Wales.' European Journal of Probation, 8 (1) pp. 30 – 48. 

Freidson E: (1994). Professionalism reborn: theory, prophecy and policy. Oxford, Polity press. HMIP: (2021) Race equality in probation: the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic probation service users and staff. London: 

HMIP. Available at: Race equality in probation: the experiences of black, Asian and minority ethnic probation service users and staff (justiceinspectorates.gov.uk) (accessed 3 August 2021). 

Mawby R. and Worrall A. (2014). 'Probation worker cultures and relationships with offenders.' Probation Journal 61 (4) pp. 346-357.

McWilliams W: (1985). The Mission Transformed: professionalisation of probation between the wars. The Howard Journal, vol 24, no 4, pp 257 – 274.

Robinson G. (2021). 'Rehabilitating probation: strategies for re-legitimation after policy failure.' The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 60 (2) pp 151-166. 

Schon D: (1991) The Reflective Practitioner. London: Arena publishing. 

Schon D: (2016) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Abingdon: Routledge. 

Senior P: (2018). ‘Probation is a profession, never let that go.’ Probation Quarterly, issue 8, pp 6 – 8.

A Probation Manifesto

I note the Probation Institute is 10 years old and has published a shopping list of what is required from any new in-coming government " for Probation to return to a robust state."  Lets hope the politicians are listening:- 

A few thoughts on ten years of the Probation Institute

At a time when both prison remands and prison sentences are increasing for a high number of people who have committed non-violent offences, it is imperative that the important contribution that probation can make to the lives of people who have offended is properly recognised and resourced. Community sentences under the auspices of the Probation Service do work! Over the years, the probation service has supported thousands of people. The Probation Institute has a significant role in both championing and supporting probation practice through its professional discussions, contributions to training, and generally keeping the flag flying for all things probation.

Professor Loraine Gelsthorpe
Chair

I joined the Board of Directors in 2015 a year after it was established. Transforming Rehabilitation had just happened amid confusion, fear and considerable outright opposition. The Probation Managers Association morphed into the Probation Institute seeing itself as a continuation of the employers organisation and operating a voluntary Professional Register.

Twenty two new Community Rehabilitation Companies were formed. Each bidding for the low to medium work of the former Probation Trusts. The National Probation Service was formed to manage high risk cases. Staff were spilt between the two new organisational structures almost arbitrarily.

It's all history now of course. The rapid but nonetheless slow motion failure of the CRCs as private companies - a completely inappropriate model for the management of people with complex needs. The robust interventions of Dame Glenys Stacey catalogued the inadequacy of the new arrangements. The privatisation experiment ended. It was no surprise that our voluntary professional register struggled in the TR years!

A note regarding CRCs however - which in a few particular instances produced pockets of innovation and lateral thinking that was fresh air - I'm thinking of developing people with lived experience as mentors and moving reporting centres into the community.

In 2016 guided by Professor Paul Senior, a small group of the Directors reviewed the structure of the Probation Institute and successfully proposed that it should focus on the professional development of probation practitioners and wider professionals working in rehabilitation. This was a major shift and undoubtedly has proved to be the right decision. The voluntary register closed, and we committed our energy to professional development, offering events and publications focussing on evidence based research, principles of practice and sharing information in accessible modes. I became Acting Chief Executive and subsequently Chief Executive.

In June 2019 Paul Senior died after a long illness. He has been greatly missed, and very often remembered.

Nick Smart, Mary Anne McFarlane and currently Professor Loraine Gelsthorpe have continued Paul's position as Chair of the Board of Directors, becoming a Board of Trustees in April 2022 when the Probation Institute became a Charitable Incorporated Organisation.

During the COVID era the Probation Institute became almost completely virtual and we are grateful to Richard Rowley who has very effectively built up our website and social media platforms. Since 2019 the Probation Quarterly has further developed as a recognised source of writing on professional matters particularly by practitioners and academics on a wide and important range of topics in the field of rehabilitation. Anne Worrall and Jake Phillips have successively and very successfully edited the Probation Quarterly (PQ) supported by an editorial board. Issue 31 of PQ is published in the week of our tenth anniversary.

Since 2014 the catalogue of significant publications from the Probation institute has continuously grown. Our catalogue includes the only Code of Ethics in the field, thirteen Position Papers including Court Work, Remote Working and Race Equality, and Research Reports, including significant joint work on veterans in the justice system. We regularly hold online Research Events and Trainees Events. The Sir Graham Smith Research Award has produced a suite of excellent practice based research reports which we have launched and published. Our responses to government consultations, developed increasingly with our Fellows, are published and shared widely. We work with a range of organisation including the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Centre for Justice Innovation, Napo, and the Magistrates Association. We welcome the support of a number of universities in the field who work collaboratively with us.

In recent conversations with politicians we have been asked what needs to happen for Probation to return to a robust state. This is what we are saying;

• Independent , external Professional Recognition and Regulation is now essential

• A complete and independent review of the organisational purpose and location of Probation is necessary, being sensitive to the importance of stability on the ground but looking at devolution and models such as Youth Justice - for example should we put desistance at the centre of the purpose in the way that prevention is at the heart of youth justice?

• The Probation Service needs to be taken out of the Civil Service

• Diversity must be understood and valued; respect for difference never taken for granted

• The voluntary sector needs to be trusted and better resourced to support the statutory responsibilities; access to funding needs to be much easier for small voluntary organisations

• Sentencers must give more time for the completion of thorough Probation Pre Sentence Reports to help to reduce risk, building on the pilots

• The presumption against under 12 month sentences must be enforced

• The relationship between sentencers and the Probation Service must be rebuilt as an effective trusting partnership

• People with lived experience must be valued and recruited into the service

We have the prospect of a Labour Government within the year of our anniversary. Over the years Labour Governments introduced Parole, the legislation for Community Service and the Youth Justice Board. We should seek brave and ambitious decisions for Probation and the wider field of rehabilitation from an incoming Labour Government. The Probation Institute is ambitious for the Probation Service to be the best that it can be.

We are a membership organisation open to anyone who wants to support professional development for probation and rehabilitation practice. We do not receive any government funding and we rely on our membership income. Please join here.

Helen Schofield
Chief Executive

Another Milestone

Later today this blog will hit yet another milestone as the counter inexorably tips us over another million hits, taking us to 9 million since it all started on the sofa with a a laptop and cup of tea some 14 years ago. Thankyou all for your interest and support and I cannot think of a better way of marking the occasion than the following reproduced from the latest bumper edition of Probation Quarterly from the Probation Institute:-

A Conversation on Values and Principles in Probation

John Deering 

Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Criminology University of South Wales

Martina Feilzer 

Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice Bangor University

Su McConnel 

Vice Chair, Napo

Ella Rabaiotti 

Lecturer in Criminology, Swansea University

Introduction

The following conversation took place as part of the work of the Probation Development Group at the Welsh Centre for Crime and Social Justice (Deering et al., 2023). We reflect on the impact of policy and organisational changes on staff in probation, focusing on their values and principles regarding probation work. In particular, changes within probation following the Transforming Rehabilitation policy (see Deering & Feilzer, 2015) are considered. Su and Ella both left probation as a result of this policy. Su later rejoined and Ella has moved into academia. Traditional values and principles in probation based on its originating ethos of ‘advise, assist, and befriend’ are thought to have come under significant pressures over the past few decades as part of numerous reforms to probation structures, changes in its overarching purpose, departures from its traditional social work training, and a dramatic staff turnover and change in staff composition. 

Reflecting on values and principles 

Martina: [Transforming Rehabilitation - TR] was quite tragic for the service, because a lot of people who'd been in probation for a long time, just left. That loss of experience was really quite marked. 

Su: I still feel it now. There's lots of young people [in the service now], very few old lifers like me. That loss of experience was huge and the oral history of the service before TR is fading fast. 

Ella: I was just thinking about people joining the previous probation service and thinking of those people that are now joining into the Civil Service…I wonder if there's a difference between the values and principles of these groups regarding joining probation. Are civil service probation values something different?

Su: I think they're different. Previously I think people joined with the same loose set of values that I had in 1986, although without thinking it through very much: ‘do good, mend people’. I worked in community service when I started, and the chief administrator of the service I worked for criticised me and my lot. He said I can't tell you apart from your clientele, you all look the same. You all drive dodgy cars, and you dress badly, and we took this as an absolute badge of honour: that we were so on side with our clientele. I sense an ‘us and them’ now, a much stronger sense of there being a staff group who do something to another person. 

The new mantra of ‘assess, protect and change' are all things that you do to people. So we assess, 'we're going to do this to you. We are going to protect everyone else from you because we're deeply worried and scared of you and perceive you as a threat. And we're going to change you.’ I think that's sort of absorbed somehow into the way people approach the work.

John: The new mantra was at least a change from the previous 20 years which was not about even imagining that you could change people, and that assessment was purely a narrow assessment of risk. We’re ‘just going to manage you.’ 

This is not just a job. You've got to enjoy it in some basic ways that are about how you view the world and how you treat people. I asked the trainees in 2010 - the government is telling you that probation is about punishing people and protecting the public. So why did you join? Nobody said I'm here to punish people. And that remained consistent throughout their training (Deering, 2010). But it's interesting to hear you say now that since it's become a civil service that maybe it's different?

Martina: It would be interesting, but I wonder whether it makes a difference? Listening to our students who express an interest in probation, they are saying ‘I'm doing this because I care about people, I care about the community I live in’. [But they] have no idea what they’re walking into as a profession, and people should be quite open about that. They've got certain ideas about the job, but then join and people tell you what to do, and that influences what you think about the job and how you do it. I still think we underestimate the amount of time that is spent in front of the computer trying to fill in a form and fighting with that and how all that can influence your practice?

Su: We keep using the word profession. One of the definitions of a profession is the thing that you do for life, if you're a lawyer, or a surgeon, or whatever that's something you do for your working life, and that is not the case anymore in probation. You get your long service medal at 5 years these days, and a huge round of applause. So that is a challenge in itself.

Ella: Often professions will have some sort of values framework. In probation ethics, principles and values have been quite changeable and wishy-washy over the years without a clear framework. I know that Napo had clear views on this and the Probation Institute has produced a list of values for practice and of course lots has been done in Europe. How important is it to have these things? I don't think people look at organisational buzzwords and fundamentally change [their values]. They might change elements of practice due to different strategies and policies, but do they change their deep rooted values? I know we've tried to state some of these things within our publication. Do you think it is important to put a marker in the sand? Say, well, this is the sort of probation that we want with these sorts of values.

John: I suppose it's about what you think probation is about. In my view, if it's not about trying to help people change and improve their lives, then there's no point to it. You could just fine all the people who don't go to prison or give them hours of unpaid work. But if you believe that things can change for people, then you have to think that you can work with people, that you can be empathic and believe in their ability to change.

Martina: In our survey (Deering & Feilzer, 2015), respondents referred to public sector values and a core belief that people can change. And that the role of the probation officer is to assist in that change. However, in research since I've noticed that there isn't a lot of ‘profession for life’ anymore, and in probation you seem to have a criminal justice professional, where people move between different services, from police to probation and back again, including to the private and charitable sectors. However, the ethos of these sectors are very different. You can see some similarities between the public and charitable sectors, but some people move between both the private and public sectors and I don't think we have a full grasp of those individuals yet in terms of their values.

Su: I think we're offering what we think, a view of what values and ethics of a probation service should be. People make individual decisions based on their own skills and understanding all the time with reference to their training and to a set of values and ethics. So you need to have a set of values and ethics to refer to, and the profession can resist calls to work in ways that conflict with its agreed values and ethics.

Ella: Agreed, but there is something about the interpretation of the words, isn't there? Earlier we talked about ‘assess, protect and change’, and it being potentially negative where we do the change to the people, we make them change - or positive if we enable and support them to change. How does this relate to the training, the development, the support of practitioners? So they can discuss and consider what some of these things mean and how they can be interpreted.

Martina: The point Su was making is important. It's about the organisation as much as the individuals within it. However, the Civil Service has no history or culture as a probation organisation, and neither does being part of HMPPS promote a probation-specific ethos. When we say ‘challenge the individual’, we also need to say ‘challenge the organisation’ to support individuals to deliver some of this work.

Ella: It almost mirrors what we do with working with people on probation, isn't it? We challenge them as individuals. But we should be going back to the system that created the circumstances that put them in that place.

John: Ever since probation became a punishment, a sentence of the court in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, governments have tried to change the ethics and values of the organisation. Government was saying probation was about punishment in the community. With the arrival of National Standards, the government set about trying to redefine the organisational culture: “We are an enforcement agency, it's who we are, it's what we do”. They knew how important it was in order to change the organisation.

Ella: That's when I started. But because I was working with the old guard, I guess, who would be like ‘forget about that’…This is how we do probation. There was a mixture of this conflicting policy, guidance and people, saying, this is what we are, and then other people go, ‘no, this is what we are.

John: Until the last 30 years 'advise, assist and befriend’ was a requirement for probation. It was all a bit vague, but it represented the values of the organisation that people within it were supposed to try and work towards, so in some sense you were able to hold them to account. I think we're quite right to argue that Probation needs to go back to an idea that it is working to engage people in a humanistic and empathic way, because we know what is potentially effective is based on those sorts of things. It's about having a proper relationship with somebody and professional work.

Su: When I first joined probation I used to laugh, if a week went by when I hadn't spent an hour discussing our values base in a meeting or other, it was a weird week. Sometimes it would go down a bit of a rabbit hole, but actually, values and ethics were talked about all the time. That social work reflective thing. It was just a naturally occurring feature in any staff meeting or conversation. 

So, if we were to persuade a probation service in Wales to adopt our set of values and ethics, we should probably suggest these are discussed at team meetings, or that should be very much part of the training.

Ella: Yes indeed, Su. Probation spearheaded anti-discriminatory practice, probation officers would bring these important issues up, and I think you might get back to that place where probation officers can lead on these important issues around respecting people as people first. That would be great for the future.

Martina: I think the point is that values and principles are only worth something, if people know how to use them in their day to day work, and can buy into them. It needs to be something that is real, and whether people agree with all of the bits it doesn't matter. That’s all part of the discussion. It must go both ways so that individuals don't feel that only they are monitored or held to account for their values, but also that they can hold the organisation to account. I've been mulling over how important it is that you have organisations that represent different views in the criminal justice system. So that opposition to a law enforcement punishment narrative exists, and that probation should hold that line. Does it sound wrong to be on the side of the person who has committed a crime? But it used to be that position, didn’t it? It’s about regaining that ground because the argument is that you will protect communities in the long run if you do that.

John: I think we've got to emphasise that this is not just a theoretical debate. It's about something that you need to make this organisation work in a certain way. So, it's absolutely integral. We need to tie it in with the evidence about effectiveness in practice and say these things are intertwined.

Su: Once we finish this conversation, I'm off to have a very final session with a woman on the very last day of 2 consecutive, suspended sentence orders, and she's been absolutely brilliant. So, we're just going to have tea and cakes, and that’ll be great. Keeps me going. The thing for me about the values and ethics is, it should make us very distinctly different from other organisations in the criminal justice system. We shouldn't be part of the prison system. Their job is to keep people in, and our absolute job is to keep them out.

Radical Rethinking Required

I notice the latest Probation Journal has a forthright editorial:-   

Probation is not a panacea for the prison crisis

The crisis in prisons in England and Wales has been brought sharply into focus. On 16 October 2023, the Justice Secretary announced measures aimed at reducing pressure on the prisons, caused in part by a record high of 88,225 people in custody (Chalk, 2023). As if this is not cause enough for concern, forecasts indicate that the population is due to rise even higher in the coming years with predictions that by March 2027 the population may rise to anywhere between 93,100 and 106,300 people (MoJ, 2023). It is clear from the Ministry's explanation of its forecasts the government's own policies (as well as the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) backlog of cases in the courts) are a central driver of prison population growth. In recent decades, almost every government policy relating to crime and justice has ratcheted up systemic pressure resulting in more people spending longer in prison. This includes longer sentences for certain offences and changes to mechanisms for prisoner release. Not to mention of course the people who remain imprisoned under the egregious Indeterminate Public Protection (IPP) sentence, which although abolished in 2012, has still left approximately 3000 people languishing in prison. While the Conservative party has been in power for over 12 years, this punitive policy direction has a longer lineage, IPPs were introduced in 2003 by a Labour Home Secretary, who has since regretted the injustice.

The government's announcement of measures to reduce pressures on prison is an exemplar of confused logic. The statement to parliament by the Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk begins by emphasising a record of increased punitiveness: Longer sentences for certain offences, proposals to expand the circumstances in which whole life sentences can be applied, and proposals that people convicted of rape and equivalent sexual offences will serve their entire sentences in custody (i.e., they will not be eligible for discretionary release). More prisons are to be built in the medium to longer term, but to address the imminent crisis in capacity more “lower level offenders” are to be released from prison early and placed under the supervision of the Probation Service. In the longer term, the government proposes to legislate to end the use of short-term prison sentences (of 12 months or less), by imposing suspended sentences that will involve community supervision (Chalk,2023). Some of the other headline-grabbing proposals include commissioning prison places overseas to reduce the imminent pressure on the prison system. While it is surely right to seek to curb the use of short prison sentences, placing further emphasis on the ‘toughness’ and enforceability of community sentences is part of the same circular logic that has led to this punitive-sum position in the first place. Moreover, this rhetoric fails to recognise the current parlous state of Probation Services in England and Wales, which are facing high levels of staff vacancies and unmanageable workloads (HMIP, 2023).

The relationship between the use of community sentences and prison is not straightforward. Various analyses including those based on data published by the Council of Europe in their SPACE statistics, which provides information on the numbers of people imprisoned and subject to community sanctions and measures (including probation) in member states, show that increasing the use of community sentences does not necessarily lead to a commensurate decline in prison populations (Aebi et al., 2022). In fact, in many contexts we see that expanding the use of community sentences can have an overall net-widening effect (Aebi et al., 2015), with more people brought under the ambit the criminal justice system. Some of the reasons for this phenomenon include the fact that expanding the use of community sentences may displace other sanctions (such as fines or discharges), or toughening enforcement policies and practices may lead to “backdoor” entry into prison even where prison was not the initial sanction imposed by a court. In England and Wales, the introduction of the post-sentence supervision requirement under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 is a prominent recent example of net-widening (Cracknell, 2018). When this measure was introduced, it was intended to address the issue of re-offending of people sentenced to short-term prison sentences (i.e., prison sentences of less than 12 months), but as various analyses have shown the overall effects have led to a treadmill effect, propelling people further through a broken system (Cracknell, 2021).

The government's modelling predicts that one of the drivers of the potential future growth of the prison population will be an increase in the numbers of people on both determinate and indeterminate sentences being recalled to prison, precisely because of the growth of the numbers of people in prison (MoJ, 2023: 6):

The recall population is projected to increase for the duration of the projection period. The increase is partly due to the expected growth of the determinate population – this will result in a larger pool of offenders on licence after serving the custodial part of their sentence, and a proportion of this group will be recalled to custody. About 20% of the offenders currently in the recall population have been recalled to prison following an indeterminate sentence. This cohort of the recall population is also projected to increase over the projection period because more offenders will leave prison following an indeterminate sentence and therefore more people will be eligible to be recalled to custody.

Or put more simply – unless something radically changes the system will continue to perpetuate itself. What the government proposes is not radical change. As some commentators have noted shifting pressure onto a creaking probation system, which has been buffeted by years of structural reforms and with significant staffing shortfalls will not be a panacea and will place further pressures on a probation system that is in crisis (Probation Institute, 2023). All of this points to the need for more radical rethinking and reform of criminal justice, one in which the emphasis on punitiveness is decentred.

Finally, I want to conclude this editorial with a tribute to Nigel Stone. Remarkably this is the 40th year of Nigel's work on behalf of the journal in various capacities. Nigel served as the Editor of the journal from March 1983 to September 1997, before handing over the reins to Hindpal Singh Bhui. Over the years he has contributed numerous pieces to the journal and most recently he has been the ‘In Court’ stalwart, writing pithy analyses of court and sentencing matters of particular relevance to probation. This issue of the journal contains a typical example, spanning cases including the impact of delays in criminal proceedings, and cases involving sexual harm and relationship and family violence. We thank Nigel for all of his contributions.

Nicola Carr

How Not To Fix A Crisis

I've come at this a bit late in the day due to being engaged with a conference, but here's the widely trailed government statement on the prison crisis, together with some responses, starting with the Howard League:-

The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the government statement on prison overcrowding and sentencing reform, announced today (Monday 16 October).

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “Two-thirds of prisons in England and Wales are overcrowded, so it makes sense to introduce targeted early release and limit the use of short sentences, particularly as the Ministry of Justice’s own research has proven they are ineffective.

“The government is right to prioritise using prison space for people who have committed serious and violent crimes, but the plan to keep those convicted of rape behind bars for their entire sentence raises concerns – especially if it means that they will be released without any form of probation supervision.

“We welcome any move to reduce the prison population and ensure that prisons can be safe and purposeful places where people get support to move away from crime. The Secretary of State’s announcement should signal a new approach to making sure imprisonment is used as effectively and humanely as possible.”

--oo00oo--

Rob Allen highlights several issues here:-

Prison Capacity: Two Oddities

Lots of historical precedents for Alex Chalk’s policy manoeuvrings today. William Whitelaw introducing short sharp shock detention centres to offset more generous parole arrangements came to my mind. And two oddities in Chalk's speech have stuck there.

First his totally false claim that the reason the prison population is nearly double the level it was three decades ago “is not principally because of the growth in the sentenced population”.

The Ministry of Justice wrote three years ago that “virtually all of the prison population increase since 1993 has been due to the increased number of prisoners sentenced to immediate custody.”

I’m genuinely puzzled why Chalk either doesn’t know this or if he does why he would wish to mislead Parliament about it. And why civil servants would allow him to say something which is factually untrue.

Second his wheeze on early release. He told MPs he’s decided to use the power in section 248 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow the Prison Service to move some less serious offenders out of prison on to licence up to 18 days before their automatic release date. This section allows the Secretary of State to release a fixed-term prisoner on licence if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds. Explanatory notes say that the kind of exceptional circumstances are where the prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness.

I wonder if it’s even lawful to use the power in the way he now wants to.

--oo00oo--

The Probation Institute speaks up:- 

Statement from the Probation Institute

The Criminal Justice System is in crisis and currently there are record numbers in prison with capacity about to be exceeded. We share the aspirations to reserve prison for the most serious offenders and to use community sentences wherever possible. However, the current proposals to release some prisoners early and to increase courts' use of community sentences, give us cause for concern. Temporarily solving one problem in the system (prison overcrowding), runs the risk of pushing the problem on to another under-resourced agency - the Probation Service - that is already struggling. Probation workloads are too high and HM Inspectorate of Probation reports have drawn attention to issues of inadequate staffing and poor levels of performance because of this, most notably in managing public protection. The evidence suggests that Probation supervision can be very effective when properly resourced.

We take the view that the problems of prison overcrowding will not be solved until a fundamental review takes place, examining the Criminal Justice System as a whole and the way different parts of the system interact. Fundamentally, there needs to be a rational debate about the place of prison and community sentences within our society, if not a Royal Commission.

--oo00oo--

Finally, this Editorial from the Guardian:-

The Guardian view on probation: the service has not recovered from a privatisation disaster

To ease the prisons crisis, improved management of offenders in the community is essential

The crisis in English and Welsh prisons is, reportedly, so acute that judges have been told to hold off jailing anyone else for the moment. The total number of prisoners last week reached an all-time high of 88,225, as reports on the malign effects of overcrowding, staff shortages, violence and self-harm continue to pile up. To relieve the pressure, the justice secretary, Alex Chalk, will allow more people to leave prison early and not send people to prison if their sentence is less than 12 months. Instead, Mr Chalk told MPs such “offenders will be punished in the community”. All this, however, seems to shift the problem from jails to the probation service, which is in an equally dire situation.

Probation was briefly a cause célèbre in 2021 when the partial privatisation overseen by Chris Grayling, in his disastrous tenure as justice secretary, was reversed. But while opponents of outsourcing were proved right when contractors failed to live up to expectations, the hoped-for improvement when the work was brought back in-house has not materialised. Last month’s annual report by the chief inspector, Justin Russell, was the last of his four-year term. In measured language, and while making an effort to highlight good practice, it delivered the grim message that the service has “if anything got worse”.

In the first three months of this year almost 7,000 people were recalled to prison, contributing significantly to overcrowding. The vast majority had not reoffended, but had broken one of their release conditions. These can include rules on drugs and alcohol, and keeping in touch with a supervisor. Inspection reports show that the proportion of probationers whose needs are met by the service has declined since 2021’s changes – making the recall figures unsurprising.

The lack of senior people, many of whom left when the service was privatised, is not helping. Currently the service is 1,700 officers short of its target of 6,160, with unmanageable caseloads contributing to high rates of sickness and poor staff retention. The return to challenging face-to-face work after the pandemic also caused difficulties. Like most public services, probation needs to be properly funded.

Mr Russell reserved his most serious criticism for grave failures in public protection. Last week saw the opening of the inquest into the deaths of Terri Harris and three children, who were murdered by Damien Bendall in 2022. He was on probation at the time and wrongly assessed as low/medium risk. The threat posed by Jordan McSweeney, who murdered Zara Aleena in east London last year, was similarly underestimated. Her family have been reported to be considering legal action.

But such catastrophic failures in individual cases point to deeper problems. The merging of probation with prisons looks like an error, with evidence that offender management works better when handled locally. This is how the system works in Scotland, and in English and Welsh youth justice teams – which achieve better outcomes. Devolving power would be a major U-turn: probation is now an entirely national service, having been once locally run and funded. Further integration with prisons is being planned. This should be paused, as unions are demanding. Mr Russell’s proposal for a review by someone outside the existing structure, and a reconsideration of whether the probation service would be better off if it had more independence, is a good one. The current situation is unsustainable, and fresh thinking is urgently required.

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