Probation services pushed to the brink of collapse in England and Wales risk endangering public, says new Public Accounts Committee report

- Probation staff left feeling ‘alienated' under the strain of crippling workloads 

A new report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) warns that the Probation Service in England and Wales is being placed under significant strain, seriously impeding its ability to protect the public and reduce reoffending rates. 

In 2024-25, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) spent £1.34bn on the Probation Service. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9bn a year. The number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all-time high. At the end of March 2025, the recall prison population was 13,583, accounting for 15% of the prison population, a 49% increase since June 2021. 

Since the Probation Service was brought under full public control in 2021, its performance has deteriorated, along with an overall rise in reoffending rates. Last year, the service met just seven of its 27 performance targets. Three years earlier it was meeting half of its targets. 

HMPPS's' new programme, Our Future Probation Service, was introduced in an effort to combat this declining performance. However, the PAC warn that this is unlikely to be sufficient. The MoJ does not have a strong history of implementing digital change programmes well, and crucially they have yet to make decisions on changes they plan to make to the level of supervision some offenders receive. 

Given the risk these decisions could pose to the public, the PAC is calling for the MoJ and HMPPS to set clear thresholds for the level of risk they are willing to accept, to help monitor operational and public protection risks. 

Evidence to the inquiry showed that people classed as low-risk often require support to prevent them reoffending. HMPPS' planned changes to probation will likely reduce supervision for these lower-risk offenders, while involving a large increase in electronic monitoring. Noting serious performance issues with the electronic monitoring service, including delays by Serco in fitting tags, the PAC is seeking more information on how the company is performing from government, as well as what role third sector and private sector organisations will play in probation to make up for this reduction in supervision. 

The vacancy rate for probation officers increased from 14% in 2021 to 21% in 2025. Probation officers are estimated to have been working on average at 118% capacity for several years, though recent findings suggest this figure is likely much higher. The inquiry heard evidence that the Probation Service's culture is built on ‘emotional strain' and 'trauma'. 

The PAC is sceptical that HMPPS has a real understanding of how many staff it needs to sufficiently improve performance. The report calls for HMPPS to set out when and how it expects to be able to provide clarity to staff on when their workloads will reduce to acceptable levels. 

The PAC was concerned to learn that when evaluating the risk of harm presented by offenders, practitioners only adequately assessed 28% of cases in 2024, compared to 60% of cases in 2018-19. This report calls for the MoJ to set out a clear timeline for when it expects its performance against key metrics to improve. 

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “The probation service in England and Wales is failing. The endpoint of this failure is demonstrated by our report, which shows the number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all-time high.it was deeply alarming to hear of probation staff working under immense pressure in a seemingly toxic environment, in a culture built on emotional strain and trauma. This not only raises concerns about the toll the overall system is taking on their mental health but the impact it is having on their ability to perform their duties. The public's safety relies on them doing so.    

“Unfortunately, the landscape for probation is not going to become more forgiving for a service which has slipped into decline in recent years, as plans to free up capacity, including with early release schemes, in other parts of the crisis-ridden justice system are likely to increase demand. Well-run probation is a must-have, helping those who have served their time find their place back in society. HMPPS accepts that the current picture is unsustainable, but its own planned changes could cause further disruption and place more pressure on overstretched staff. The probation service is already teetering on the brink. Government's immediate goal must be to avoid making matters worse.” 

PAC report conclusions and recommendations  

Since 2021, the Probation Service has failed to meet most of its performance targets. In June 2021, HMPPS brought the Probation Service in England and Wales back under full public control. However, performance against targets HMPPS set for the service - metrics covering a range of probation activity, for example, timing of initial visits - has worsened. In 2024–25, HMPPS only met seven of its 27 performance targets, while three years earlier it was meeting half of its targets. Most concerningly, practitioners only adequately assessed risk of harm in 28% of cases in 2024, compared to 60% of cases in 2018–19. The deterioration in performance was largely due to continued staff shortages, although HMPPS stresses that its recruitment efforts have increased staffing numbers by 20% since 2021. Despite these efforts, the vacancy rate for probation officers has increased from 14% in September 2021 to 21% in March 2025. To help manage workloads, HMPPS introduced a prioritisation framework in 2022, but workloads remained high. However, it did not introduce further measures to reduce workload (called ‘Reset' and ‘Impact') until 2024 and 2025. These measures have still not reduced workload for probation officers to a sustainable level. Despite such poor workforce planning, MoJ and HMPPS seem reluctant to accept responsibility for the service's poor performance. 

Recommendation 1. HMPPS should, in its Treasury Minute response, set out a timeline for when it expects to see meaningful improvements in the performance of the Probation Service. This should include when it expects the service to meet all its performance targets. 

MoJ and HMPPS do not know how probation performance affects outcomes such as reoffending. The overall aims of the Probation Service are to protect the public and to reduce reoffending. MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending by adult offenders was £20.9 billion in 2024–25. HM Inspectorate of Probation's 2023 research indicates that high-quality probation supervision significantly reduces reoffending. Given the service's poor performance, it is unsurprising that reoffending outcomes have deteriorated since 2021. The reoffending rate for adults supervised by the Probation Service was 5% higher in 2023 (latest data available) than in 2021, and the number of offenders charged with a Serious Further Offence while under probation was 55% higher in 2023–24 than in 2020–21. Additionally, the number of prisoners recalled to prison is at an all-time high. Offender outcomes can be influenced by many factors, including whether people leave prison into safe housing and employment. However, at our evidence session in December, HMPPS did not accept that its poor performance in probation was linked to the rise in reoffending. HMPPS is evaluating the impact on recall rates of reduced supervision for most offenders in the last third of their sentence (‘Reset'). It is important that the effect on reoffending and public protection is also examined. 

Recommendation 2. In their Treasury Minute response, MoJ and HMPPS should set out:  

a. what more they could do to monitor and understand the impact of Probation Service changes on reoffending and recall; and  

b. when they will be able to share their findings from their evaluation of the ‘Reset' initiative, including its impact on recall rates. 

Longstanding staff shortages have left probation staff dealing with excessive and unmanageable workloads. At March 2025, there were 5,636 full-time equivalent probation officers in post, 79% of target staffing. According to HMPPS's data, probation officers have been working on average at 118% capacity for several years, with highs of 126% in some regions, including London. However, actual workloads will have been higher than this as HMPPS's recent refresh of probation activity timings showed it had seriously underestimated the time needed for staff to complete tasks. This underestimation, on top of existing staff vacancies, meant that it had been operating the service with just half the number of sentence management staff required. Probation staff have also had to deal with a high level of change to probation processes, which adds to their workloads. Researchers told us that probation staff have felt alienated by frequent changes and that the Probation Service's culture is built on ‘emotional strain' and ‘trauma'. Staff sickness and staff turnover has risen or remained high - in the year ending March 2025, the leaving rate for probation staff was 9.3% (6.2% in 2021) and sickness rate was 13.2 working days (8.9 in 2021). The most common cause of staff sickness is mental ill health. 

Recommendation 3. HMPPS should, in its Treasury Minute response, set out:  

a. when and how it expects to be able to provide clarity to staff on when their workloads will reduce to acceptable levels; and  

b. the volume of changes it expects staff will need to introduce and how it plans to make this manageable for staff. 

We are not confident that MoJ and HMPPS can successfully manage the risks associated with the new probation programme. Over an 18-month period, HMPPS's new programme - Our Future Probation Service - aims to introduce new digital tools, changes to probation processes and changes to the level of supervision for some offenders. Its plans include implementing over 30 digital initiatives to help reduce the time probation staff need to spend on tasks. For example, Transcribe is an AI tool to help staff capture meeting notes. However, there is a risk that constant changes can disrupt services, contribute to poor outcomes and staff stress. While HMPPS plans to implement new digital tools incrementally, the short time-frame carries a high level of risk and MoJ does not have a strong history of implementing digital change programmes well. Additionally, MoJ and HMPPS are still deciding on some of the changes they plan to make to the level of supervision some offenders receive, which may pose risks to public protection. Given these risks, we are very concerned that MoJ and HMPPS have not yet set clear thresholds for the level of risk they are willing to accept, to help monitor operational and public protection risks. 

Recommendation 4. HMPPS should set out, in its Treasury Minute response:  

a. how it will assess when digital tools are sufficiently developed to roll out to staff;  

b. its risk thresholds for rolling out digital and process changes/scope changes; and  

c. how it will monitor if thresholds are breached. 

We are not satisfied that HMPPS's new programme will free up sufficient capacity to improve performance. HMPPS aims to close the current shortfall of 3,150 probation staff by March 2027, by freeing up operational capacity by 25% through its ‘Our Future Probation Service' (OFPS) programme. However, we are sceptical that HMPPS has a real understanding of how many staff it needs to sufficiently improve performance. While its estimates of the staffing shortfall are based on its updated activity timings, it reduced these timings down from staff-reported averages in many cases. HMPPS reduced these averages because it judged staff could complete tasks more quickly with additional training. It also later dismissed its own internal review which suggested that it needed to go beyond its planned 25% reduction in workloads to allow staff sufficient time for the learning needed to improve performance. Its estimate of the shortfall takes into account the Sentencing Bill, but does not account for the impact of some wider policy changes, for example, the Independent Review of Criminal Courts, which is likely to create additional demands on probation staff. It will also be important for HMPPS to develop a contingency plan if the OFPS programme does not reduce workloads as planned. 

Recommendation 5. HMPPS should, in its Treasury Minute response, set out:  

a. how it plans to keep the scale of the staffing shortfall in view following future policy decisions which may further increase demands on the service;  

b. how it will ensure that staff will have capacity to undertake sufficient training to improve performance, including the number of training days factored into its modelling of staffing shortfalls; and  

c. its contingency plans, if its programme does not reduce workloads sufficiently 

Sufficient third sector and private sector capacity is required to meet offender needs, but decisions around funding are still unclear. HMPPS's planned changes to the scope of the Probation Service will likely reduce probation supervision for many offenders assessed to be at lower risk of harm and reoffending. As highlighted to us by the Prison Reform Trust, low-risk individuals often require support for mental health, financial and drug treatment to prevent them becoming high-risk and reoffending. HMPPS's plans will therefore require increased community support from Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) and other third sector organisations. The government has committed to providing an additional £700 million funding for the Probation Service over the next five years, but MoJ and HMPPS have not clarified how much of this funding will be available to cover additional demand for rehabilitative services. HMPPS's plans also involve a significant increase in the use of electronic monitoring. Currently around 26,600 people are electronically monitored in the community but MoJ expects this to increase by up to 22,000 people. However, there have been serious performance issues with the electronic monitoring service, including delays by Serco in fitting tags. 

Recommendation 6. MoJ and HMPPS should write to the Committee within six months setting out how Serco is performing against its key performance indicators, with regard to the electronic monitoring service and fitting tags.  

Recommendation 7. Once MoJ and HMPPS have clarified the role that they intend third sector and private sector organisations to play in the future Probation Service they should write to the Committee setting out:  

a. estimates of the proportion of individuals who will need access to this support and how that will be funded;  

b. what assurance they have that those no longer supervised by the Probation Service will be sufficiently supported to reduce reoffending, including providing details about the assessments they have made; and  

c. what plans they have to ensure that its electronic monitoring contracts are set up to deal with a significant increase in the number of people electronically monitored in the community.