Researchers at the Ministry of Justice have carried out a full study of Probation Reset, which began in April 2024. Under Reset, probation officers had instructions to spend less time with people in the final third of their probation period. Their focus was to shift to people newly released from prison.
While the scheme ran, it drew criticism from Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee. The Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, also criticised it. He said the service lacked resources and staff, so Reset was not achieving what it intended.
The new report examines how Reset worked in practice. It looks at how the scheme was put in place and how people felt it affected sentence management. It also explores how staff across the criminal justice system coped with large-scale change.
What the researchers found
The researchers spoke to 40 probation practitioners and 13 people on probation. They also interviewed seven Parole Board members, eight police representatives and a number of judges.
They found that regions applied Reset inconsistently and often departed from what the policy intended. The main reasons, they say, were that it arrived too quickly and with unclear guidance. Understanding improved over time, and processes became better established.
Reset suspended active supervision in the final third of a licence or order. Even so, some practitioners said they kept working with certain people. This ranged from informal check-ins to full supervision. It often reflected concern for people with neurodiverse conditions, high needs or rising risk.
Some staff raised particular concerns that Reset affected women more than others. Women are more likely to pose a lower risk but to have higher levels of need. Several practitioners said planned mental health support often failed to start in time. People with mental health problems then had no support once Reset began. The researchers found Reset unsuitable in these cases.
Some judges questioned whether sentences were working as intended. Some suggested they had changed their sentencing decisions as a result. Parole Board members also became less likely to grant release, because they had less confidence in community oversight under Reset.
Lessons for future change
Participants described change management in probation as rushed and poorly communicated. They said it lacked meaningful consultation. Where national messages were unclear, strong local leadership helped staff through the changes.
Several operational changes arrived at once, leaving staff little time to absorb new guidance. Staff often had to apply changes as they went, before they fully understood them. They worried that reforms land at the same time without clear priorities. The pace and volume of reform, they said, had caused change fatigue and lowered job satisfaction among practitioners.
The researchers say any future large-scale change in the probation service needs clear communication and meaningful consultation before final decisions. Implementation should avoid mixed messages and overlapping system changes, and should take account of regional differences.
Guidance on managing people on probation should be practical, accessible and specific to each role. The researchers add that changes should fit the core values of the Probation Service. That would help keep morale, retain staff and maintain public confidence.
