Programmes - the shambles that we predicted long ago

Yet again, Napo and our sister unions in Probation are being faced with more alarming news from the centre in relation to the capacity issues around Programme delivery as well as the quality aspects. It is now apparent that the decision to downgrade and reduce the costs for the delivery of Programmes has been driven by incorrect information as well as a refusal to listen to the experts. This has resulted in what is now being seen as one of the worst examples of business restructuring since the dark days of Transforming Rehabilitation.

Long ago Napo asked for sight of the business plan that informed the sweeping changes to Programmes teams, but were told by senior management that they didn’t have one, and that they were ‘responding to the data.’ Despite Napo's warnings, HMPPS senior management pressed ahead by disbanding the teams who specialised in working with people convicted of sexual offences, leading to many of those highly experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled facilitators to leave the service or move away entirely from Interventions, leaving a big delivery gap.

At the same time senior management said that they wanted to rush ahead with the delivery of the new ‘Building Choices’ programme, despite Napo and our sister unions advice that this would lead to an even bigger staffing gap and an inability to deliver the required number of programmes. Today, as you will be aware, there are now thousands of people who will not have a place on an accredited programme in spite of their Court or Licence condition and nor are there the necessary staff resources to deliver them. The question that is being asked is why and how this situation was allowed to develop?

Recent high profile media coverage (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/10/alarm-plan-less-qualified-probation-staff-sex-offenders-england-wales) reveals that there also appears to be a widening public concern about the change in status of Facilitators from Band 4 to Band 3 who are now expected to deliver Programmes to people convicted of sexual offences. Previously this role was assigned to highly trained staff with the requisite experience of working with people convicted of sexual offences, i.e. normally qualified Probation Officers.

What’s happening now?

Given the chaotic situation that staff face, the ability to gain the important prior experience of working with that cohort of Men will not be available to those Band 3 Facilitators and nor will that level of training. unless they move into sentence management and apply for Probation Officer training.

We continue to press senior management on the following key issues:

1. If facilitators do not have the ability to gain the same level of working experience and the same level of training with people convicted of sexual offences as they did previously, how confident can the employer be that they are not putting Facilitators and the wider public at risk, and the Men at increased risk of reconviction, and the service at risk of reputational damages
2. Concerns from HMI Probation. Experience Matters: Martin Jones, the Chief Inspector of Probation, has emphasised the need for close monitoring to ensure the new programmes are effective and do not waste public funds. He highlighted that the above changes have caused a lot of concern among Probation Officers.
3. Programme Changes: Some intervention programmes for Sex Offenders, such as Horizon, Kaizen, and iHorizon, will be replaced with a single programme called Building Choices, which is the same programme delivered to people convicted of domestic abuse and general offending behaviours. The new programme offer in the community will be the moderate intensity version for medium to low risk people, whilst the prisons will also offer a high intensity version　for those who are high or very high risk. Because of the crisis in capacity the new prioritisation framework in the community is proposing that delivery is only for those who are high or very high risk in the community (this will exclude large numbers of people who fall below this, including Men convicted of Sexual and Domestic abuse offences). Practitioners in the community will only be delivering the moderate intensity programme, and research tells us that under treating someone can have the same risks as over treatment, so who will take this responsibility?

Unions continue the campaign

Napo and our sister trade unions have previously warned that the move could have a "catastrophic" effect on public safety. We intend to continue this work with the new Government to seek an urgent review into what has gone on. We have stressed the importance of retaining experienced employees to supervise complex cases effectively.

• Focus on Sentencing. We have concluded that the agenda around punishing Men convicted of Sexual Offences seems to focus on increasing sentences rather than protecting those victims at risk of being targeted by people convicted of Sexual Offences and reducing reoffending. The Istanbul Treaty is clear for the need to have accredited programmes which address the specific factors associated with sexual and other forms of violence against Women and Girls.
• Resource Allocation and Recruitment. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently announced the cancellation of rehabilitation courses for 13,000 convicted criminals due to "impossible" workloads. Napo notes that the programme teams are also significantly understaffed and under resourced due to the removal of the teams who specialised in working with men convicted of sexual offences, and those highly experienced and trained people moving　 out of the service.
• Napo are concerned that with the significant number of service users who won’t be allocated a place on an accredited programme, the onus of the work will fall to the Probation Practitioner in the guise of online toolkits. This is not acceptable when it is acknowledged by the service that our probation practitioners are already working over capacity.
• An MoJ spokesperson had told the Guardian newspaper that Probation staff will continue to deliver accredited programmes only if they are fully trained to do so. While this will not change as part of the proposal being developed. Napo would question if that training is enough?

Going forward, the unions will be taking every opportunity to raise these issues in the media and with Ministers and cross-party politicians. We will also be seeking to make a presentation to the Justice Select Committee and will consider an approach to the National Audit Office.