The picture looks stark. The HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) supervises around 241,540 people in England and Wales. Yet it only has 5,636 full‐time equivalent probation-officer grade staff. The ratio is plainly unmanageable. According to the National Audit Office (NAO), only around one-quarter of probation services’ performance targets were met in the past 12 months—a drop of 24 percentage points.
In its landmark report Building an Effective and Resilient Probation Service, the NAO states HMPPS under-estimated the number of staff required for sentence‐management work by around 5,400.And without sentence plans being completed within 11 weeks of sentence (as is required), prisoners cannot progress to open conditions, cannot meaningfully engage in interventions, and the public and the individual both suffer.
Let’s dig into some of the detail, the impact and especially what this means for women under supervision — and why we should be alarmed.
The Numbers & The Gaps
- The proven reoffending rate for the January-to-March 2023 offender cohort was 26.5%.
- The Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) budget for criminal justice is complex, but according to a June 2025 Commons Library briefing the MoJ’s capital budget for 2025-26 was set at £2.039 billion (Capital DEL) — and core spending on HM Prison & Probation Service increased by £495.6 million (30%) year on year.
- The exact number of probation-officer roles advertised at present is not centrally published in the public data I located; job boards show many “probation services officer” and “qualified probation officer” roles open (for example 42 roles in one North West vacancy listing)
- The NAO identifies a massive shortfall: they estimate HMPPS underestimated required staff by ~5,400 for sentence-management tasks.
- On staff leaving/churn: The NAO report says “since 2021 probation had suffered with staffing shortfalls and high workloads.”
- Minimum education/experience to become a probation officer: the standard route is through the Probation Qualifying Programme (PQiP) which typically requires a degree (or equivalent) and on-the-job training. The advert for “Qualified Probation Officer” shows salary £30,812-£38,289, indicating the fully qualified entry grade.
- On skills: Probation officers must assess risk of harm and risk of reoffending, produce sentence plans, coordinate multi-agency interventions (housing, mental health, substance misuse), track compliance, manage licence conditions and breach processes. They rely on risk-assessment tools/algorithms, professional judgement and supervision.
- Why do probation officers often say their algorithms are wrong or ineffective? Because the risk-assessment tools (for example RoSH or OGRS tools) depend on historical data, may not reflect complex individual pathways (especially for women, who often have trauma, mental health, substance misuse and relational issues rather than classic “risk” profiles), and the tools can mis-classify or oversimplify. Additionally, with heavy workloads and little time, officers may feel constrained to rely on tool outputs even when they know the individual context is different. This mismatch between tool/algorithm and lived individual complexity undermines professional judgement and leads to dissatisfaction.
- On failed IT contracts by MoJ: One example: A House of Lords committee found MoJ wasted £98 million plus a further £9.8 million remedial cost on electronic monitoring contract mistakes.
The Human Cost: What Happens When Sentence Plans Don’t Happen?
When a sentence plan isn’t completed in the required timeframe (11 weeks), a cascade of adverse effects follows:
- Offenders may be unable to access required courses/interventions, delaying or preventing progression to less restrictive regimes or open conditions.
- Without structured supervision and plans, people are more likely to drift, reoffend, or breach licence conditions that could have been addressed proactively.
- Staff workloads increase further because unmanaged cases multiply, reactive work dominates.
- For women specifically, who often have overlapping vulnerabilities (trauma, mental health, substance misuse, caring responsibilities, histories of abuse), a delayed or generic sentence plan means these needs go unrecognised, services may not be tailored, and the risk of recall, self-harm or further offending grows.
Why Are We Here? What’s Gone Wrong?
The NAO flags a number of root causes:
- The 2021 unification of probation under HMPPS changed structures and practices, creating upheaval.
- The “Our Future Probation Service” (OFPS) change programme lacked proper risk assessment of how changes would reduce workloads and maintain quality.
- The introduction of the RESET programme in 2024, which stopped monitoring offenders in the final one-third of licence for many, was intended to free up staff time — but HMPPS states the benefit has not materialised sufficiently.
- IT and infrastructure weaknesses (failed contracts, weak risk-assessment tools, over-ambitious tagging/electronic monitoring programmes) further erode service resilience.
- Recruitment numbers may be up, but experience levels are low and the workload‐gap remains huge (the 5,400 shortfall estimate). The NAO say the service is currently “unsustainable”.
Why This Matters for Women Under Licensed Supervision
Women on licence or community supervision are among the most vulnerable in the system. Many are mothers, have been victims of domestic abuse, have substance misuse issues, or mental-health problems. When the probation service fails to produce timely and meaningful sentence plans:
- Women lose the chance to access gender-specific interventions, support for parenting, trauma-informed services and desistance programmes.
- Women are at greater risk of recall because their supervision may not account for these complexities; a breach or missed appointment may slip through because there’s no robust plan or support.
- Without effective sentence planning, the system becomes reactive rather than proactive. Women fall through the cracks; their disadvantage compounds.
- A service under strain means that women are less likely to receive consistent contact, face staffing turnover, and see less continuity — undermining trust and undermining the protective value of supervision.
What Must Happen Now?
- Urgent staffing boost — experienced probation officers must be recruited and retained, not just filled by numbers. The skills gap is real.
- Proper workload modelling and sentence-plan completion performance should be central metrics. If only 26% of targets are met, that must be front and centre.
- Risk‐assessment tools and algorithms must be reviewed: recognise their limitations, especially for diverse populations (women, minorities) and reinforce professional judgement.
- Protect investment in IT and infrastructure — but learn the lessons of failed contracts. The £98m+ wasted on one MoJ contract is a warning that poorly managed change will cost far more.
- Tailor sentence planning and supervision to women’s needs — gender-responsive services, trauma-informed approaches, parenting support and substance misuse interventions.
- Accountability and transparency: Public reporting of how many sentence plans are completed in 11 weeks; how many officers have 5+ years’ experience; how many staff are leaving; how many vacancies are advertised.
Final Word
When the probation service cannot fulfil its core tasks — like completing sentence plans in the required timeframe or managing the volume of cases it holds — the consequences ripple outwards: to the individuals under supervision, to public safety, and to the economic cost of reoffending (estimated by MoJ at around £20.9 billion annually).
The numbers we see – 241,540 people supervised by 5,636 qualified officers; targets being met in just a quarter of cases; a shortfall of some 5,400 sentence-management staff; failed IT investments — all point to a system under catastrophic strain.
For women under supervision, the system is especially brittle. Without timely, tailored supervision they face the double jeopardy of their complex needs and a system too overstretched to see them. If the probation service does not recover its capacity, the promise of community supervision — rehabilitation, desistance, positive change — will remain out of reach for too many.
This is not about election slogans or bureaucratic reform for reform’s sake. It is about lives — the lives of those leaving prison, those under licence, those navigating trauma and disadvantage — and genuinely reducing reoffending for the benefit of all. The probation service must be rebuilt, not just reshaped.
Image source: Prison and Probation Jobs
