How can we reshape community sentences to support the revolving door group?
On 20 May 2025, Revolving Doors hosted a roundtable discussion exploring how we improve the effectiveness of community sentences for individuals caught in the revolving door.
Those attending included civil servants and representatives from across the sector, including the Magistrates Association, the Probation Institute and probation areas across the country, as well our Revolving Doors lived experience members.
The roundtable was chaired by Martin Jones, Chief Inspector of Probation, who set the tone for the discussions by highlighting the current crisis in the probation service, which is plagued by staff shortages, high caseloads, and excessive demands on probation officers.
He pointed to the dramatic rise in the prison population, with the number of people in prison doubling since 1993 and the number of community sentences issued decreasing by around 50% over the past decade, leading to growing concerns about the lack of rehabilitation opportunities for individuals who need them the most.
Why it’s time to address the revolving door group
Held just two days before the release of the Sentencing Review, our roundtable could not have been timelier.
The Sentencing Review includes important recommendations on limiting the use of short sentences and on managing ‘prolific offenders’ as a specific group. This ‘prolific’ group is what we regard as the revolving door cohort: people who commit low-level offences linked to trauma, addiction, poverty and mental ill-health. Short custodial sentences and fines are not the solution and rarely address these issues.
Meanwhile, probation’s model of “resource follows risk” often leaves this group underserved, increasing the chance of early breach or recall before support can be offered to address the causes of their offending.
So, our roundtable asked the pivotal question:
How can community sentences be reshaped to truly support this group?
Good justice starts with a pre-sentence report
I think if there’s any chance for a community sentence to be successful, it starts with the pre-sentence report. It’s just my experience when I had that one pre-sentence report, where I met the Officer for a few hours, and she really looked at my background and spoke to other people who knew me. Taking that time, meant that I had the trust, we built up a rapport and everything. I think this meant I got an appropriate sentence. I went on then to say offending free and drug free for an 8 year period.
– Lived experience member
The roundtable highlighted that a key barrier to effective community sentencing is the decline in the use and quality of pre-sentence reports (PSRs). Once a cornerstone of informed sentencing, PSRs provided in-depth assessments of a person’s background, the root causes of their offending, and analysis of suitable sentence options.
In 2014, over 32,000 standard PSRs were produced. By 2023, this had fallen to just 4,374, replaced largely by fast delivery and oral reports, often based on rushed, under-30-minute interviews. These brief reports rarely offer the context needed to understand someone’s history or needs.
For people in the revolving door, this lack of insight is damaging. Judges see long lists of convictions without understanding the why, why previous interventions failed, or what support is now needed? In this vacuum, custodial sentences become the default.
The roundtable came to a consensus that to rebuild judicial confidence in community options and support rehabilitation, we must restore high-quality, context-rich PSRs as standard practice.
A personalised and trauma-informed approach is essential
The roundtable was unanimous in the belief that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach does not work for people in the revolving door group. Instead, community sentences must address the root causes of offending, such as trauma, addiction, mental health, and lack of housing. Probation and other services involved in supervising the sentence should adopt trauma-informed, person-centred practices. Stabilising support – such as accommodation, healthcare, and income – should also be established prior to expecting full compliance with sentence conditions.
This approach ensures that people are treated holistically and their individual needs are recognised. It also allows for greater engagement and reduces the likelihood of reoffending by focusing on long-term stability rather than short-term punitive measures.
I was just this little person – broken in two and I didn’t know how to put myself back together. And the only thing I knew how to do was offend, use, offend, use, offend, use, and nobody seemed to think, like ‘hang on, there is something wrong with this person. What can we do to help?’ People who are hurt, they just want to be listened to.
– Lived experience member
Relationships are central to success
A major area of consensus in the roundtable was the importance of consistent, empathetic relationships between individuals on probation and their supervising officers.
The staffing crisis in probation has meant that it is common for people to have a carousel of supervising officers, making it very difficult to build trust or engagement. Several lived experience members shared their stories, highlighting that when probation officers took the time to understand their personal histories and establish trust, the probation process was far more successful.
There was a clear consensus among participants that continuity in supervision, where possible, is critical to building trust and a sense of accountability.
The need for integrated and responsive services
Effective responses for the revolving door group cannot come from probation alone. The roundtable participants stressed the importance of integrated services that bring together probation, housing, health, substance misuse, and domestic abuse support.
A multi-agency approach, like the one demonstrated in Nottingham’s Changing Futures programme, was cited as a successful model that should be expanded.
Speakers emphasised the need for real-time coordination and flexibility between services. They also called for joint funding and strategy between the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and health and social care systems, ensuring that people receive the comprehensive support they need when they need it.
I think that probation are missing a trick with IOM, they could utilise that service, even modify it and it could be beneficial to many, many people as it was to myself. I mean, the support that I got while I was on IOM was excellent. I went to probation knowing I was going to leave with a smile. For the first time, I had a probation officer that actually cared. She actually made me feel valued.
– Lived experience member
Integrated Offender Management (IOM) was described as needing expansion. IOM is a multi-agency approach to offender management, where partners from police, probation, drug and alcohol treatment providers and health work together to manage identified ‘prolific offenders’ and to address the root causes of their offending.
Resource and capacity constraints
A key barrier to effective community sentences is the lack of resources. Staff shortages, high caseloads, and insufficient funding undermine the ability of probation officers to deliver meaningful support. The group stressed the urgent need for investment to restore capacity to probation services and other key support services, such as mental health and housing services.
The role of peer support and lived experience
The importance of peer support and lived experience leadership in the criminal justice system was also highlighted. Peer-led programmes, where individuals with lived experience mentor those currently in the system, provide unique credibility and inspire hope. These approaches should be embedded in service delivery and co-production processes to create more effective and humanising rehabilitation pathways.
Recommendations for action
Based on the insights shared, the roundtable participants put forward a set of actionable recommendations to improve community sentences for the revolving door group:
- Improve pre-sentence reports (PSRs): Restore the use of high-quality, full PSRs to inform appropriate sentencing. Ensure PSRs are prepared by officers who have time to engage deeply with the individual rather than being done ‘on the day’.
- Strengthen probation-client relationships: Prioritise continuity and trust in probation supervision. Maintain the same probation officer from pre-sentence to the end of the sentence where possible.
- A distinct approach for the revolving door group: Tailor community sentences for the revolving door group to address their specific needs. Expand and resource Integrated Offender Management (IOM) teams with additional rehabilitative elements.
- Ensure stability before compliance: Address basic needs such as housing, health, and benefits before expecting compliance with sentence conditions. Introduce care packages that include housing arrangements, financial support, and health access upon release.
- Expand integrated, multi-agency support: Foster collaboration between probation and other support services such as housing, health, and social care. Replicate successful models like Nottingham’s Changing Futures across the country.
- Reinvest in probation and community resources: Restore adequate staffing and service provision to deliver effective community supervision. Increase recruitment and retention in probation, improve working conditions, and reduce caseloads.
- Increase judicial confidence in community sentences: Strengthen confidence among magistrates and judges to sentence to the community. Provide training and webinars, incorporating lived experience perspectives, to inform sentencing decisions.
- Integrate peer support and lived experience: Embed peer support and lived experience leadership in service delivery and policy design. Fund peer-led recovery and mentoring programmes.
Conclusion
The revolving door group requires a distinct, person-centred approach to community sentences: one that addresses the root causes of offending, prioritises stability and fosters positive, empathetic relationships with probation officers.
By rebuilding trust in community sentences and ensuring that individuals receive the holistic support they need, we can break the cycle of reoffending and create better outcomes for both individuals and society.
