Efficiency and resilience
A new (4 February 2026) report from the Public Accounts Committee into the Efficiency and Resilience of the Probation Service concludes that the service has been “pushed to the brink of collapse” and that it risks endangering the public. The Committee Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, also expressed his concern for staff:
“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.”
Context
In 2024-25, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) spent £1.34bn on the Probation Service. However, performance of the service in England and Wales has worsened since the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) brought probation under full public control in 2021.
Probation staff were only adequately assessing risk of harm in 28% of cases in 2024 compared to 60% of cases in 2018–19. Poor performance may create a risk to public safety. The number of offenders charged with a Serious Further Offence while on probation increased by an alarming 55% in 2023–24 compared with 2021–22. The service has been operating under severe strain, and demands on the service are likely to increase further, due to plans to free up capacity in prisons and courts.
The Committee makes it clear that staff shortages have been the main reason for poor performance. In March 2025, there was a 21% vacancy rate in the probation officer grade. Staff shortages have been exacerbated by HMPPS’s serious underestimation of the staff that it required. Its failure to update old data for years meant that it has only recently realised that the service has been operating with around half of the sentence management staff it needs.
Lack of confidence in the HMPPS and MoJ
HMPPS acknowledges that the current system is unsustainable. To address high workloads and poor performance, it plans to roll out an ambitious reform programme over the next 18 months. Even if it recruits as many staff as it plans to, HMPPS still needs to address a staff shortage of at least 3,150 staff (out of 15,000 sentence management staff needed). It aims to address this gap by March 2027, by reducing workloads through introducing new digital tools, improving processes, and changes to the level of supervision for some offenders.
However, the Committee cautions, these changes may cause further disruption, and increase pressure on staff who are already significantly overworked. The report says that it is vital that the programme goes beyond applying a sticking plaster to the service and that it creates sufficient headroom to allow staff time for learning and development, to enable significant improvements in performance.
The Committee states baldly that it is not confident that MoJ and HMPPS can successfully manage the risks associated with the new “Our Future Probation Service” probation. This 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, the Committee highlights the 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.
The Committee says both that it doesn’t have a robust implementation plan which looks to manage the operational and public protection risks.
Even more fundamentally, the Committee says that it is “not satisfied” that even if the programme is successful, it will free up sufficient capacity to improve performance. It notes that both the new Sentencing Act and the Criminal Courts Review will add more more workload to an already struggling probation service.
This is, of course, only the latest in a series of reports identifying the growing problems with the probation service. However, it is one of the more significant because the Public Accounts Committee is regarded as the most powerful and influential Committee within Westminster. The chair’s concluding remarks show the extent of the problem:
“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.”
