This report presents the findings from an evaluation of SEEDS2 which was undertaken using a mixed method approach using surveys and one-to-one interviews with probation partitioner, middle managers and Senior Managers. The research was carried out in 2024/2025 by Dr Jake Phillips, Sam Ainslie, Andrew Fowler, Dr Jennifer Rainbow and Dr Chalen Westaby.
The overall response to SEEDS2 was positive although there were some barriers to implementation outlined. The report outlines encouraging aspects of the training programme described, as well as more challenging issues discussed, and presents some to be taken from this evaluation going forward. The main findings of the research are:
- Most staff respondents had some awareness of the SEEDS2 training beforehand, and the majority felt that the training met its aims. Staff appreciated the focus on professional development, reflective practice, emotional labour, and engagement. However, many participants, especially those with more experience, felt that SEEDS2 reinforced skills they already used rather than introducing new ones. While the content was generally well-received, online delivery was a barrier for some, particularly those with specific learning needs.
- Practitioners reported using person-centred communication, the push-pull model, and procedural justice concepts in their work. However, implementation was hampered by systemic issues, particularly high caseloads, time constraints, and competing organisational demands. A tension emerged between SEEDS2’s relational ethos and the bureaucratic, performance-driven structure of probation work. Some saw SEEDS2 as aligned with good practice, while others perceived it as adding to an already overburdened role.
- Reflective Practice Supervision Standards (RPSS), a core component of SEEDS2, were inconsistently implemented. Where embedded, they were viewed positively - especially by less experienced staff who were used to being observed - but time and competing priorities limited their effectiveness. SPOs and SMSLs acknowledged the value of reflective supervision but described the model as burdensome or impractical under current conditions. Some suggested that reflection occurred more organically outside formal sessions, through peer support or post-appointment debriefing.
- Interviews with people on probation underscored the importance of SEEDS2’s core principles. Participants valued probation officers who were empathetic, good listeners, and consistent. The relational dimension of probation was repeatedly cited as central to positive experiences. Participants appreciated involvement in their supervision and sentence planning, but also voiced frustration with frequent staff changes and an overly procedural approach. Some expressed empathy for overworked staff and suggested that workloads limited relationship-building and meaningful engagement.
While SEEDS2 was generally well-received by staff and aligns with principles that practitioners and people on probation value, the extent to which SEEDS2 has changed practice remains limited. This is primarily due to systemic constraints, including unmanageable workloads, role complexity, and misalignment between SEEDS2’s relational ethos and the service’s managerial priorities. While people on probation did not articulate direct awareness of SEEDS2, their preferences and feedback validate its core principles. For SEEDS2 to drive meaningful cultural change, it must be supported by structural investment in workforce wellbeing, manageable caseloads, and consistent supervision frameworks.
