Protect and Survive

I'm not sure why, but Operation Protect passed me by on Monday 26th June. No longer being a Napo member, I probably didn't get the email. I certainly didn't catch it on the radio or TV and it doesn't look like it made the news agenda that day at all. Of course this is always the risk when launching any campaign and it all depends on what else was going on a fortnight ago. It's also pretty obvious that unless HMI Justin Russell has a 'Dame Glenys moment' before handing in his staff pass in a month or two, bugger all is going to happen. After all, he's been talking about it since taking office. 

Unmanageable probation workloads putting the public at risk, warn unions

Soaring workloads in the probation service are putting the public at risk, warn probation unions today (Monday).

Napo, UNISON and GMB, which represent staff working in the probation service in England and Wales, say crippling workloads will lead to a catastrophic breakdown of the service if the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not intervene.

Probation workers are responsible for monitoring people on probation in the community. But a recent restructure and staff shortages are making it extremely difficult to keep tabs on some of the UK’s most dangerous individuals, say the unions.

Employees are buckling under the pressure and many workers are quitting, leaving newly qualified and less experienced staff to take the reins.

Unions fear overstretched staff are being scapegoated for the effects of an under-resourced service, prompting yet more staff to seek employment elsewhere.

Calls for immediate government intervention have gone unheeded, say unions. This has led to the launch of today's campaign aimed at reducing workload.

The three unions are hopeful that the campaign, Operation Protect, will raise wider awareness of the issue and the threat posed to the public.

Napo general secretary Ian Lawrence said: “It would be all too easy for this much-needed campaign to be seen as a negative move from the probation unions. But among the key objectives is a call to senior leaders in probation and His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to play their part by reaching an agreed workload reduction and management strategy with unions. This will allow the service to start to recover from the incessant and damaging changes it has gone through for more than a decade.

“Probation can and must do better with the right levels of investment, but our members need to see that this government is taking their concerns seriously.”

UNISON national officer for police and justice Ben Priestley said: "Probation staff are determined to keep the public safe and rehabilitate those on probation. But overwhelming workloads and staffing shortages have created a dangerous situation, which the government must address."

GMB national officer George Georgiou said: “The probation service has seen 10 years of underfunding and increasing workloads for all its staff. This campaign seeks to address the working conditions for our members who are being made unwell through high workloads. It will also protect staff, the communities they serve and their profession.”

The joint union workloads campaign is being launched later today (Monday) at the MoJ.

--oo00oo--

Dear Xxxxxx

Operation Protect to protect the public, protect our members and protect our profession

Today sees the launch of the Joint Probation Unions' Operation Protect.

It’s the start of a campaign that the unions will be conducting right through to the next General Election, before which we will be lobbying the main political parties to set out their blueprint for the Probation Service. There are five principle objectives to the campaign and members should be receiving material from your Napo representatives today to help you promote these.

1. Work with Ministers, HMPPS, HMIP, Probation Institute, Sentencers & Statutory Partners to agree a strategic probation workload reduction programme by:

Reviewing existing legislative demands which do not add value to core probation work; Identifying other upstream demand reduction; Eliminating or reducing bureaucratic demands which do not add value to core probation work; Identifying and addressing barriers to productivity; Surveying the workforce for their ideas on workload reduction; Agreeing a Probation Workloads Reduction Toolkit; Agreeing a Probation Service equivalent of the Prison Service ‘Operation Safeguard’ to allow the Service to declare to external stakeholders that it is full, and that normal service cannot be provided pending more resources.

2. Agree a safe workloads and case allocation system which will:

Be jointly agreed between the probation unions and the employer; Ensure that each employee’s workload is regularly assessed; Provide staff and managers with the tools to prioritise certain work and to agree which work should be suspended (temporarily or permanently); Respect probation practitioners’ professional judgement about workload capacity which if they were covered by an independent professional registration body might require them to declare any excessive workload which might affect their fitness to practice; Take contingency action when workloads exceed staffing capacity. 

3. Ensure that all staff have high quality supervision, when and how they need it, to manage workload effectively by:

Agreeing appropriate supervisor to staff ratios; Employing more supervisors as necessary; Providing training, support and mentoring to supervisors; Ensuring that supervisors have authority to reduce workloads via decisions on case allocation.

4. Give probation staff the confidence, tools and support to challenge excessive workloads by:

An employer pledge to prevent workloads above capacity – to be shared with external stakeholders; The right for staff to work contracted hours only – no quibble guarantee; Voluntary overtime to be offered to staff who wish to offer more time to the employer; The overtime seniority bar to be removed.

5. Reach an Employee Care Agreement with the Probation Service to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of probation staff by:

Undertaking the necessary risk assessments; Taking measures to remove stress; Taking measures to support staff to remain in work.

Help us to achieve the changes needed to restore Probation as a Gold standard service

Members in Napo, UNISON and GMB/Scoop are making it clear that they have had enough of the egregious damage that has been done to their profession over nearly a decade of interference and mismanagement by Government. Numerous reports from HM Inspectorate of Probation have vindicated the warnings that the union issued many years ago about the long-term impact of the disastrous decision to part-privatise Probation back in 2014.

While everyone welcomes the reunification that took place two years ago, and the tremendous efforts by our members to help make that possible, the subsequent failure to adequately reinvest, pay people a competitive salary and control unsustainable workloads, has led to a severe loss of morale, and serious shortages of experienced staff who can help mentor new entrants to the service.

Today marks an important start to our campaign and more news will follow about engagement events with members and other public facing events that will be designed to draw the attention of politicians and stakeholders to the importance of Probation within the Criminal Justice System.

Meanwhile, please spread the message, especially amongst colleagues whom you know are not currently in a trade union, to consider joining Napo and to play a part in this important collective campaign.

Visit the website for photos from today’s launch and access to additional leaflets if required.

Ian Lawrence              Helen Banner
General Secretary      National Chair

26th June 2023

--oo00oo--

I don't think we covered this Napo briefing from last January:-

Workloads and Staffing in Probation: A Briefing by Napo

The Probation Service has experienced serious staff shortages since the implementation of the privatisation reform programme in 2014. This has largely been due to the incorrect allocation of staff (too few in the National Probation Service and too many transferred into the private Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC). This led to the private providers making huge numbers of redundancies during their contracts. Since the welcome reunification of the service in June 2021, it has become very apparent that there is now a staffing crisis resulting in dangerously high caseloads, which in turn has led to a serious recruitment and retention issue. Despite the attempts to undertake a mass recruitment drive in the last two years, staff shortages and workloads have become critical. This briefing highlights a few key examples (but is in no way exhaustive) of the impact this is having on staff, public protection and the overall functioning of the service.

London:
In one Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) alone there are approximately 650 unallocated cases. Unallocated cases are put into a reporting system where they are seen, but usually by a different officer each time and clients/service users are simply asked if they have any issues rather than any meaningful offence focused work being carried out.

On average, staff in this PDU are on 192% of the workload management tool meaning that staff are being expected to carry out double their usual workload.

A newly qualified officer (NQO) was on 118% of the Workload Management Tool (WMT) just 2 days after qualifying, when NQO’s should be on a protected caseload for the first year of service. Whilst the target staffing for this area has yet to be worked out, it is clear from these figures that there are significant shortages.

East Midlands:
The BBC have contacted Napo to say that they have received an anonymous letter from a Probation Officer in this region stating that they were on 130% of the workload management tool. The practitioner was deeply concerned that this was unsustainable, and will lead to errors and failures in public protection. Napo is already aware of one Serious Further Offence (SFO) in this region and whilst the investigation into this is still ongoing Napo believes that staff shortages and workloads is likely to be a contributory factor with staff simply not having the time or capacity to properly assess cases and manage them appropriately. Napo is very aware that this will likely lead to individuals taking the blame for something that can be directly attributed to the wider organisational crisis affecting the service.

Napo are also aware of further reports that the region has numerous teams with Probation officers and Probation Service Officers (unqualified staff) at 130% plus on the WMT.

Staffordshire West Midlands:
Due to the Staffs West Midlands Region re-organising staff to try and combine legacy CRC and NPS staff, a number of colleagues have been asked to express their preferences for where they would like to work.. A large number of staff expressed a desire to get out of Offender Management (holding a caseload of clients) and have tried to go into Court teams or other areas of the business where the role does not require them to hold client caseloads. This has resulted in a completely new court team in Birmingham, which now contains many staff with inexperience of this important work. In addition, a lot of staff are unhappy about where they have been allocated and have appealed adding to the issues described above.

It is now becoming normal for practitioners to have caseloads of 130-150%. There is also at least one case of a PQUiP (Trainee Officer) being allocated a caseload between these figures. There is also some evidence to suggest some colleagues have 170% against the WMT.

Wales:
Napo has seen evidence that staff are on over 150% on the WMT.

Warwickshire and West Mercia:
Staff have submitted Foreseeability Notices to managers due to excessive workloads and concerns of Health and Safety risks to staff. Caseloads fluctuate between 135% - 145% on the WMT.

Risks:
The Probation Service has experienced staffing and workload crisis’ before. In the 2000’s there were two very prominent SFO’s: namely the: Sonnex case and Hanson and White. Both were subject to full reviews, and in both instances excessively high caseloads were found to be a significant factor in the failings in risk management which led to the commission of these offences and ultimately the death of their victims.

Napo is deeply concerned that we will see an increase in SFO’s which is a serious public protection issue. We are also concerned that this will lead to individuals being held accountable for something that is, in our view, an organisational failing. Under such circumstances Napo will do all it can to defend our members against ‘scapegoating.’

Recruitment & Retention:
The current Civil Service centric recruitment process for Probation Officers is flawed; especially for internal candidates who are being asked to use personality tests that take no account of an individual’s experience. As such, experienced Probation Service Officers who wish to progress to qualification are finding themselves in a dead end job with minimal chance of progression. Napo is aware that there are some internal candidates who whilst being successful in the application process, have had their start date for training postponed as staff shortages mean they cannot be released from their current roles. Many staff are now leaving due to the relentless pressure they find themselves under. Some are leaving shortly after qualifying, which is a waste of talent and public funds.

Staff Personal Testimonies:
“I am leaving the Service end of March after 21 years. I am passionate about what I do and there are aspects of my job that I love, but I cannot continue to look after myself in these circumstances any longer – it is detrimental to my physical health now and mental health – something that my employers pretend to care about and make a lot of noise about – whilst nothing changes on the ground. I have seen so many people leave including new qualified Staff as they just burn out rapidly and the support is not there, they cannot see it getting better.”

“Staffing is a serious concern & it’s always jam tomorrow with PQiP’s coming soon but they cannot be expected to hold the organisation together & don’t actually solve the problem. Firstly data collection & admin continue to dominate the case manager role . The duplication & lack of efficient systems is frustrating.

Also management of this Probation Service always take easy options with staffing & fail to make the tough calls about ensuring experienced & adequate staff are in the front line”

What Next?
Napo is fully aware that this situation cannot be resolved overnight. However, we strongly believe that senior leaders and the Secretary of State for Justice have so far failed to fully grasp the situation or developed a short, medium or long term strategy to ensure the service can run effectively going forward. Whilst a workload management strategy is currently being developed and negotiated, this includes a formal process that will allow staff with unreasonable workloads to “miss out” certain tasks to relieve their workloads. This is a damming indictment of where we are at in this ever growing crisis. Napo is demanding a full staffing review to be carried out and for regional vacancies to be identified and published alongside detailed strategy.

Probation staff have effectively run out of good will and are exhausted. The lack of a pay rise, despite their ongoing hard work has added further insult to injury. Probation needs real investment, not in gimmicks such as an expansion of electronic monitoring which has serious limitations in terms of actually reducing reoffending, but in a well-supported and decently paid workforce.

Questions you may wish to ask:
1. Whilst HMPPS is currently going through a large recruitment drive, what steps are being taken to address the issues of retention for probation, what are the short, medium and long term plans to alleviate workload pressures for existing staff and what are the target staffing numbers for each region?

2. Will the Minister direct the National Probation Service to enter into meaningful pay talks with all three probation Trade Unions and what assurances can he give to staff that he will ensure that there is a decent pay rise?

3. What assurances can the Minister give that public protection and rehabilitation will not be jeopardised as a result of the workloads and staffing crisis in probation?

4. Will the Minister take full responsibility for any serious further offences that occur as a result of dangerous workloads and severe staff shortages in probation and can he assure staff that they will not be blamed?

5. What financial investment will the probation service receive to improve recruitment and retention in the service and ensure that staff feel valued?

6. Will the Minister order a full staffing review to identify how many vacancies there are and in what regions?

Tania Bassett
Napo: National Official

BR02-22 
21st January 2022

Caseloads and Workload

Regular readers will be fully aware that one of the disastrous effects of TR was on the level and nature of caseloads, especially for POs and SPOs moved into the NPS. Alison Moss's recent damning book has laid out in stark detail some of the resulting tragic consequences, rather cogently summed up in this recent Amazon review:-  

Required reading for Probation Staff at all levels

A hair-raising account of abuse by management at the highest level at the behest of politicians in fear of the media. The ‘manage from the top down’ mentality enables and encourages scapegoating of the unfortunate overloaded employee on the ground rather than addressing systemic failures brought about by the disastrous TR (Transformation of Rehabilitation) experiment dreamed up by Chris Grayling, despite warnings and protests from the organisation. This left Probation officers in the National Probation Service supervising the most dangerous individuals with no respite.

The SFO had already been investigated at the time and action was taken at local level. When the politics hit the fan 19 months after the murder, it was decreed that “heads may roll”; clearly understood as an instruction. How can it be reasonable to one-sidedly “investigate” a case like this without interviewing the people being investigated. The whole sorry tale reeks of political machination.

The book highlights the plight of dedicated professionals when things go wrong. It is clear that probation officers and managers work under extreme pressure to the best of their ability, holding on to the values of why they joined the service. They should be aware they could easily be the next to be scapegoated and thrown under the bus to protect the organisation and politicians; who have little understanding of the day-to-day challenges or the reality of working in an under-resourced and overstretched system.

Alison eloquently makes the reader aware that such tragedies are not isolated instances and will continue to occur in the future, despite best practice. The truth is that some men are just too dangerous to ever be released, despite their ‘human rights’.

--oo00oo--

It will be of considerable interest that HM Inspectorate have just published their findings on the matter:-

Caseloads, workloads and staffing levels in probation services

Context 

Within our standards framework for inspecting probation services, our organisational-level standard on staffing (standard 1.2) emphasises the need for: (i) sufficient staff levels to meet workload and caseload demand; and (ii) the active management of practitioners by managers who themselves have a manageable workload. 

This bulletin examines the extent to which probation services have been meeting these expectations, as well as exploring the consequences and the prospects moving forward.

Approach 

The findings in this report are based on the following five sources of evidence: 

(i) Relevant official Ministry of Justice (MoJ) statistics. 

(ii) Data collected from our probation inspections conducted between June 2018 and June 2019, including aggregated data from over 3,000 case inspections, and qualitative analysis of about 2,000 interviews with frontline probation staff.

(iii) A reanalysis of qualitative data obtained from a survey of senior probation officers conducted for our 2019 inspection of National Probation Service (NPS) central functions.

(iv) A commissioned Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of the UK and international evidence about caseloads and workloads in probation services and other related policy spheres.

(v) Interviews with senior officials and leaders on their experiences of workload and caseload management in probation services. 

Key findings and implications
Our key finding is that when probation practitioners hold a caseload of fifty or more, they are less likely to deliver high-quality work meeting the aims of rehabilitation and public protection. A precise target number for caseload cannot be set as there are too many inter-connected variables in relation to case complexity, the available administrative support, and the interventions and services that can be accessed. 5 However, there was a consensus among staff and senior managers that between 50 and 60 cases is the maximum number that can be managed well. 

• Less than half (46 per cent) of probation practitioners believed they had a manageable workload, while just over half (54 per cent) considered that team workloads were actively managed. Probation officers were less positive about their workload than probation services officers, and those working in Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) were less positive than their NPS counterparts. 

• Senior managers in both the CRCs and the NPS agreed that workloads were unbalanced and resulted in stress and anxiety for many staff. Probation practitioners told us that high workloads were exacting a high personal toll upon them in the form of stress, sleeplessness, and fear of making serious mistakes through overwork. 

• Moving forward, in addition to the plans to recruit more staff, there are other promising developments for reducing workload pressures for the probation frontline: 

• The creation of administrative service hubs, which, if implemented well, can relieve practitioners of many support functions and thus free up time for one-to-one work. 

• Improved ICT and management information, facilitating faster access to case information, improving partnership working, and avoiding duplication of administrative efforts. 

• Improved access to accredited programmes and structured interventions, preventing the need for probation frontline workers to make up for gaps in provision with time-consuming and sometimes less effective one-to-one work. 

• Improved access to wider services, particularly through co-location and the creation of community hubs which put individual service users at the centre of service provision. 

• Employing support workers with lived experience, helping to engage service users. 

• Evaluating the potential value of remote supervision and new digital interventions.

Introduction 

This bulletin aims to contribute to understanding how well caseloads and workloads in probation have been managed in recent years, and how they could be managed in the new probation delivery model. 

Concerns over rising caseload and workload levels 

We expressed concern about workloads and staffing levels in our 2020 submission to the Comprehensive Spending Review (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a), stating: ‘probation staff are struggling to manage high numbers of offenders – 86 per cent of staff in CRCs and 33 per cent in NPS divisions are responsible for more than 40 cases. In our opinion, it is difficult for even experienced practitioners to deal with 60, 70, 80 or more cases properly. Financial pressures have also led to some CRC providers replacing qualified probation officers with less experienced staff who are still training towards a qualification.’ The human price of high workloads was also emphasised by our Chief inspector in a recent speech as he noted that “the impact of this on some of the staff we spoke to was clear. Some were in tears as we spoke to them. Others spoke of being burnt out and of having to work evenings and weekends to keep their head above water” (Russell, 2020). 

Causes of rising caseloads and workloads 

Transforming Rehabilitation has been a key driver in relation to changes in caseloads in recent years. In June 2014, 35 public sector probation trusts in England and Wales were replaced by: (i) a new public sector NPS with responsibility for supervising those who present a high or very high risk of serious harm or who are managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA); and (ii) 21 private sector led CRCs with responsibility for supervising most other service users presenting a low or medium risk of serious harm. As such, staff were no longer supervising ‘mixed’ caseloads in terms of risk levels. 

Transforming Rehabilitation also introduced (through the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014) a new duty on probation services to supervise prisoners released from short prison sentences of less than 12 months. Post-sentence supervision came into effect for those whose offence was committed after 01 February 2015 and who would be over the age of 18 at the point of release. This considerably increased the number of post-release service users managed by probation in the community, climbing from just under 40,000 on 31 March 2015, to 68,863 on 31 March 2020, a rise of 74 per cent. Prior to Transforming Rehabilitation, the caseload for the probation trusts had been falling year on year since 2000. 

Another driver of caseload change has been the introduction of the suspended sentence order (SSO) in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introducing SSOs without requirements) – these orders have proved popular at the expense of community orders (COs). Those currently supervised under COs have declined by 31 per cent since 2008, whereas SSOs have remained relatively stable (minus two per cent). 

The result of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms combined with offending and sentencing trends have left probation services with a caseload of service users who have more complex needs, more entrenched offending attitudes, behaviours and lifestyles, and often higher levels of risk than before the ORA was implemented. 

What is an acceptable caseload size? 

In providing context for their REA on probation caseloads, Fox et al. (2020) noted that the question of identifying optimum caseloads and workloads for probation staff has always been complex, as governments have consistently sought to reconcile the competing aims of maximum effectiveness and value for public money. Across Europe, different jurisdictions have very different models of probation. The most recent Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (Council of Europe, 2019) found that the ratio of probationers per individual staff member varied from 4.7 in Norway to 240 in Greece with an average (median) ratio of 33 cases. 

Within the UK, there is no legislation or guidance specifying the ideal or maximum caseload size to be held by a probation worker, and there is no definitive research to establish the optimum workload in terms of mix and numbers for effective work with those subject to probation supervision. However, Rule 29 within the European Probation Rules (Council of Europe, 2010a) states as follows: ‘Probation staff shall be sufficiently numerous to carry out their work effectively. Individual staff members shall have a caseload which allows them to supervise, guide and assist offenders effectively and humanely and, where appropriate, to work with their families and, where applicable, victims. Where demand is excessive, it is the responsibility of management to seek solutions and to instruct staff about which tasks are to take priority.’ Further elaboration is provided in the accompanying commentary: 

‘An adequate staff complement is essential to the agency’s effectiveness and efficiency. If staff workloads are too large, then the probation agency will not be able to work as it should. Workloads should be assessed in a holistic way with an assessment made of the demands of individual cases and not simply on the number of cases or offenders under supervision. An overall shortage of resources constrains an organisation’s potential and excessive workloads will prevent individual members of staff from achieving their best practice. This Rule appreciates that agencies may not have as many resources as would be ideal. If the workload of an individual staff member becomes excessive, then the importance of setting priorities becomes even more pressing. The Rule states that management has a responsibility to devise strategies to manage demand and to assign a reasonable and equitable workload to members of staff. Where this cannot be achieved because of pressure on resources, managers should be actively involved in advising staff about which tasks must take priority over others.’ Council of Europe, 2010 

In England and Wales, Webster et al. (2020, unpublished) noted that the changes occasioned by Transforming Rehabilitation have led to a number of contentious discussion points among the probation community including the following: 

• What is the long-term impact for NPS staff of managing a caseload solely comprising those who have committed offences causing high levels of harm to the public? (Phillips et al., 2016)

• What is an appropriate caseload for responsible officers in CRCs who are operating to very different models and expectations, depending on the approach of their owner?

• Should caseloads be lower for NPS staff supervising those presenting a high risk of serious harm or are the demands of supervising more low/medium risk service users within CRCs actually greater, recognising that a greater proportion may have a high likelihood of reoffending, multiple needs and chaotic lifestyles?

Some of these issues will be superseded by forthcoming reforms to the probation sector, whereby all offender management will move to the NPS in June 2021. However, these issues are still of relevance to the findings in this bulletin.

--oo00oo--

Extracts

Analysis of the qualitative data from the staff interviews revealed how individual staff felt about the manageability of their workloads. There were some staff members who described their workloads as manageable, and indeed there was one officer (but only one) who had asked management for additional cases. Yet even when staff said their workloads were manageable, they often then added that it was still “not ideal”, or only manageable “to a degree.” They were also aware of other colleagues whose caseloads were not manageable. 

Nevertheless, the overwhelming message from staff was that they saw their caseload levels as too high to be manageable, with one describing caseloads as “an ongoing nightmare.” In some CRCs, staff reported that they had over 100 cases to manage, whereas the ideal was seen by staff to be somewhere around 45 cases: 

“60 cases for a PO is too many. I would be completing quality work if this was approximately 15 less.” (PO, CRC) 

“I think a caseload that is manageable would be 45 to 50 but I am above that.” (PSO, CRC) 

“I would prefer to have 40 cases where I can do more meaningful work.” (PSO, CRC) 

CRC senior leaders we interviewed agreed with that benchmark for case numbers, one remarking, “40 to 50 cases [has been] seen as reasonable since time immemorial.” Another CRC leader argued that more than 45 cases was too many life stories to try to absorb. Linked to the high-risk nature of NPS cases, caseloads were generally lower, but still many staff reported being over capacity: 

“My caseload has traditionally been over 60 and it is not manageable. I have forced the issue with my manager to have it reduced so I can try and deliver a quality service. All except two of my cases are high risk.” (PO, NPS) 

Within the CRCs, PSOs could play an important role in easing workloads. However, due to the differing nature of the cases, it was often not appropriate for cases to be allocated to PSOs within the NPS: 

“The team has a high proportion of trainees and PSOs and so there are limits as to the number and type of cases that the staff can hold” (PO, NPS)  

“Across the team we have PSOs with capacity to do more but they can’t hold the high-risk cases we need managing.” (PO, NPS) 

Those who were working part-time said they felt additional strain, and that allowances were not always made for their reduced hours: 

“I went part-time, but my caseload did not change.” (PSO, CRC)  

“I work part-time, but I hold what I would consider to be a full-time workload.” (PO, CRC) 

Even though many staff did say that their workloads were now lower than they had been in the past, they were still seen to be far too high. 

“Workload is not manageable although it has been significantly worse in recent months.” (PSO, CRC)  

“I used to have 67 cases, so 57 seems more manageable in comparison. But this in itself is not manageable.” (PSO, CRC)

----///----

Where staff considered their workloads to be manageable, they often said this was due to caseloads being actively managed: 

“Managers are very good at reallocations and take good care not to overload those who may not have the mental or physical capacity to have their caseloads increased.” (PSO, CRC) 

For others, even though they believed that their work was being managed, this had not led to a smooth-running system: 

“It would be unfair to say we are not actively managed but there is a lot of firefighting.” (PO, CRC) 

In some areas, staff were able to have their cases reallocated to new staff or PSOs but this was not the norm. In many areas, while managers were sympathetic, there was little that could be done regarding reallocation. Often there did not appear to be a ceiling to the number of cases which staff could hold, and as all cases had to be allocated to someone, staff did not feel in a position to refuse work, even when they were already over capacity: 

“Our manager understands, but the cases can’t go anywhere else as no one else is not up to capacity.” (PO, CRC) “Everyone is struggling with workloads but there is no one else to redeploy the cases to.” (PO, CRC)

In these instances, the main advice which managers could give was around how best to prioritise workloads. There were also concerns from many staff that if they did have work taken off them, it would simply be reallocated to a colleague who was similarly overworked: 

“I was struggling with stress and my manager eventually took 10 cases off me but she gave them to a colleague who sat next to me. I then had to watch her struggling. It really affected our relationship.” (PSO, CRC) 

“There are difficulties in managing the cases we have, then when we are covering for others – which is quite often – it causes more difficulties.” (PSO, NPS) 

The NPS use the online Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) to monitor staff capacity. Much of the data is uploaded each evening from the nDelius case management system but line managers need to undertake some data entry (adding reductions or changing contracted work hours as appropriate) and to monitor accuracy. The WMT takes account of: 

• attributable time (time spent managing service users) 
• non-attributable time (travel, ICT problems, supervision, comfort breaks – 16 per cent is assumed) 
• non-effective time (holidays, sickness, training – 20 percent is assumed). 

The current measure of excessive workload is where an officer has a WMT capacity of over 110 per cent over a consecutive four-week period. 

Some CRCs have commissioned bespoke workload measurement systems, or use resource management tools or other manual calculation methods based upon routine management information. 

When speaking to probation staff, many indicated that their levels on the WMT or equivalent systems were constantly over 100 per cent. Consequently, they deemed the tools largely ineffective for managing workloads, and seeing the high numbers could be a cause of raised anxiety: 

“The last time I looked at the WMT I had the highest workload so I have stopped looking at it.” (PSO, CRC) 

“Staff often do not know how many cases they have as they find it distressing. I purposely do not look at the WMT because it is always over 100 per cent and causes me stress.” (PO, NPS) 

Managers complained that they often felt that they did not have the time to complete the WMT. It was also noted that this rarely offered a full picture, with the time required for more complex cases or other tasks not being accurately reflected. This was seen by one PO as especially true in the NPS, although there will be other aspects of complexity in managing CRC cases: 

”NPS have complex cases which generate parole reports, referrals, ARMS assessments, recall reviews etc. These processes are massive and it is difficult to keep up with the pace. The WMT does not adequately account for all the work that is required.” (PO, NPS)

Those senior NPS managers we interviewed were concerned at the focus given by some staff to the WMT capacity metric, with one senior leader recognising that it did not fully reflect the manageability of an individual’s workload, going on to explain: 

“[WMT] is not a tool for telling you whether an offender manager has got too many cases. It is to tell you whether compared to their colleagues they’ve got too many cases. It is to balance a caseload, not to say whether too much is too much. If one offender manager has a score of 130 and another has a score of 70, that does not tell you that the person with 130 has too much workload – they may be able to manage that – but it does tell you that the workload is unbalanced.” (NPS senior official) 

There is clearly a need to better communicate the purpose of the WMT to frontline NPS staff and create a common understanding of what the capacity metric does and does not demonstrate. It currently appears to be causing considerable stress and anxiety to those for whom being anywhere over 100 per cent logically feels like the workload is too high (although, of course, this may well be the case). A senior NPS HQ official did concede that a WMT capacity metric over 120 per cent was, on average, too high but it was important to remember that the number could not describe the full complexity of probation work situations. 

One of the hopes for the new unified probation service from summer 2021 is that the revised WMT will be able to demonstrate more clearly when ‘probation is full’ in a similar fashion to the measures that indicate when prisons are overcrowded.

 

Conclusion 

While there is no ‘magic number’ for the ideal caseload in probation services, our analysis demonstrates how the quality of probation delivery can fall when practitioners hold caseloads above 50. This is in line with the, albeit limited, academic evidence that reducing probation caseloads is associated with improved compliance and reductions in reoffending. Notably, there was a consensus among staff and senior managers that between 50 and 60 cases is the maximum number that can be managed well. The toll that higher caseloads was having upon staff in terms of stress, anxiety and sickness was very evident. 

Transforming Rehabilitation was experienced as painful by many probation staff, whether they worked in the NPS or in a CRC. Probation leaders will need to work hard to rebuild trust and heal the rifts that have developed within the profession. Senior leaders we spoke to agreed that there should no further ‘big bang’ for probation, with caseloads slowly blended after appropriate training and bedding-in periods. CRC staff will need refresher training, or to be inducted, into working with sexual offenders, MAPPA cases, and foreign nationals. NPS staff will need to (re)learn the challenging work of managing low and medium risk of serious harm cases, where post-sentence discovery often reveals chaotic lifestyles, multiple needs and deeper problems such as domestic abuse and child safeguarding concerns. 

The Probation Reform Programme is an opportunity for joint learning and the sharing of experience that could help overcome divisions and build the new probation culture so urgently needed. In addition to the plans to recruit more staff, there is much to learn and retain from the CRCs who have developed innovations such as support hubs, co-location with statutory and voluntary partners, and service user involvement. These initiatives, when implemented well, have improved service delivery and relieved some of the workload burden on the frontline. CRCs have led the way in working with or developing community hubs to bring probation into neighbourhoods and ease access to essential services (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020e). Some CRCs have co-located with other agencies to reduce costs, while improving information flows, referrals and joint work. 

The Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) is being taken forward in the unified probation service. The tool is being used to model staffing requirements and likely caseload scenarios, including the impact of an additional 20,000 police officers to be recruited over the next three years. The WMT will need revising to meet the post-pandemic world of work; there is the potential for more remote supervision, more home visits, and more working from home. The time values at the heart of the WMT will require reworking in consultation with frontline staff and middle managers. Staff also need a clear explanation from probation leaders as to the function of the WMT. Leaders must stress that it is not necessarily a reliable indicator of workload at the individual level, but a management tool for rebalancing team workload and caseload. At a strategic level, it could be invaluable in making the case for resources, particularly if it could indicate more clearly when probation services are operating at a maximum capacity (in a similar way to how HMPPS monitors prison capacity). 

The innovations we have seen in the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent probation EDMs will need to be carefully evaluated in terms of the impact on workloads. For example, although travel times have been radically reduced by remote supervision (telephone or videoconferencing), the amount of contact has in some instances increased. Moreover, we currently have no strong evidence that remote supervision is an effective means to 31 supervise and help rehabilitate probation service users, and protect the public (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019a). The Target Operating Model for the new unified service proposes a blended approach to contact (HMPPS, 2021), and we have thus recommended in a recent thematic review that HMPPS should ‘urgently conduct a large-scale, robust outcome evaluation of the effectiveness of remote (telephone-based) supervision for different types of service user’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021). 

Probation staff and managers have demonstrated impressive levels of dedication and resilience to keep services running and keep protecting society during the Covid-19 pandemic. Moving forward, the frontline and their leaders are clearly determined to successfully unify and reinvent probation for new times. But, as we emphasised in our 2019/2020 Annual Report, success will also depend upon: 

• a reasonable financial settlement enabling the recruitment and training of sufficient qualified staff 
• providing the right amount of administrative support 
• ensuring the availability of a broad range of interventions and community services for probation service users.

Probation and Workload

With all that's going on it's easy to forget that TR2 has already started in Wales and the latest newsletter from Napo Cymru indicates that the process is not going to be painless. There's more than a suspicion that the issue of workload is going to be 'fudged' in some way with help from 'a new tiering system' because we all know a quart does not fit into a pint pot. 

This of course is an extremely serious issue because it drives the increase in work-related stress, sickness absence, staff retention, recruitment, morale, service delivery and ultimately mistakes and errors that can have very serious consequences. The MoJ is fully aware of an increasing staffing crisis and both they and the political masters must be forced to reconsider the whole bankrupt ethos behind plans for TR2. 

Given very recent events, probation finds itself once more at the centre of unwelcome publicity and scrutiny with unscrupulous and mostly ignorant politicians wanting to gain political advantage, so now is surely the time for everyone who has regard for our ethos and survival to get involved in our defence before it's too late. In this regard it's pleasing to note news of an important piece of research commissioned by HMI into probation work levels and to be carried out urgently as reported yesterday by Russell Webster. I have republished the call for evidence below the following highlights from the latest Napo Cymru newsletter:- 

NAPO Cymru WINTER NEWSLETTER 2019

TR2: the “Reunification Model”

It is not “reunifying probation”. It is not “Strengthening Probation”. After relentless pressure from Napo, our sister Unions, the Justice Select Committee, and others, the Ministry of Justice was compelled to take action in the face of the abject disaster that is “Transforming Rehabilitation”. The reunification of Offender Management in the NPS, in Wales, with England to follow, is a welcome step in the right direction. But an insufficient step, a small repair to a serious damage. Napo Cymru will not allow the airbrushing out of this calamitous error, and will fight on until the whole of Probation is unified, in the public sector, and a professional, local and responsive service.

The staff in Unpaid Work and Programmes spend more time with our clients than anyone else. There has been a misleading distinction drawn between “Offender Management” and “Rehabilitation”. The work of OM (including risk management) and rehabilitation is accomplished collaboratively between case managers and staff in unpaid work and programmes. Separating these achieves nothing other than to hamper the work and line a few pockets. It is a nonsense. A complete reunification of probation in the public sector would be more easily accomplished, it would be understood by all, enhance risk management and increase the confidence of staff, courts, our clientele, and victims
Napo continues to make the case for the full reunification of Probation in the Public Sector. In advance of the transfer of Offender Management staff from the CRC to NPS in Wales last week, General Secretary Ian Lawrence and Napo Cymru Vice Chair Su McConnel made this case on BBC Wales news bulletins on Friday 29th November.

Deja-vu: We are in familiar territory: experts, unions, practitioners, academics, all warn that the marketisation of probation work, this time unpaid work and interventions, is a hopelessly flawed strategy. The MoJ is so far persisting in pursuing TR2, but the fight is not over yet. There has been wide criticism of the launch of the tendering process during the “purdah” imposed during the General Election.

--//--

Transition roll-out

Your Napo officers have met regularly with managers in the lead-up to the transfer of OM staff. Staff new in to NPS are getting to grips with the different processes, policies and IT. 

Workload Management Tool 1

Note to all NPS staff: those who have time/workload adjustments, for example for Union duties (facility time) or as a “reasonable adjustment”: It appears that the WMT tool automatically cancels any agreed adjustment to capacity on the anniversary of it being agreed. We have raised this issue with employers, and now alert you to this. Check that your adjustment is in place, and if it has been deleted, alert your manager and seek the support of a Napo rep if necessary.

Workload Management Tool 2

WMT will not be reliable in the first month or so of operations following the transfer of CRC staff to NPS. This is because the new tiering model is not yet introduced, plus inevitable glitches as cases are reassigned. For this early period, WMTs may give misleadingly high scores. Right now, it is worth finding the WMT on your computer if you are not familiar with it, but not relying on it now to give an accurate indication of workload. Napo remains concerned that workloads will be high, and cynical that the new tiering system may be an attempt to squeeze a quart into a pint pot, and will press for detail of the tiering system, and consult with members about their experiences.

Stress and workloads

In the meantime, the best measure of whether your workload is excessive for this period is probably yourself. No member of staff should be expected to work at above their capacity, especially at a time of significant upheaval. We would remind you of three things to do if you are concerned that you are experiencing work-related stress:

1. Complete a “Forseeabilty notice” and give this to your manager. You can find this on Napo website here https://www.napo.org.uk/stress-work along with good advice and guidance. While you don’t have to, it would be helpful to send a copy to a Napo rep to help us monitor the situation amongst membership. 

2. Record any stress incidents on the H&S incident register. It has been acknowledged that this is under-reported 

3. Contact a Napo rep if you need advice and support

CRC staff: Napo is being misquoted

CRC staff, please be aware that Napo Cymru have not been invited to talks and negotiations with managers regarding the new operating models. We have seen and heard reported to us, statements to the effect “Unions have agreed” if one member of any Union was present at a meeting. This is a misrepresentation. Agreements must be made with each individual branch of all Unions, or at national level with those Unions. When you are told “the unions have agreed this”, unless you have been informed by your union, this may not be the case. Check with your reps.

--oo00oo--

What should probation caseloads be?

The question of identifying optimum caseloads and workloads for probation staff has, of course, always been a thorny one as governments have consistently sought to reconcile the competing aims of maximum effectiveness and value for public money. There has been additional focus on this issue since the split of the English and Welsh probation service under the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme. In addition to the high workloads repeatedly identified by HMI Probation, particularly, but far from exclusively, among the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), the changes occasioned by TR have led to a number of contentious discussion points amongst the probation community including such issues as:

• What is the long-term impact for National Probation Service (NPS) staff of managing a caseload solely comprising those who have committed offences causing high levels of harm to the public?
• What is an appropriate caseload for responsible officers in CRCs who are operating to very different models and expectations, depending on the approach of their owner?
• Should caseloads be lower for NPS staff supervising high-risk offenders or are the demands of supervising more low/medium risk offenders within CRCs actually greater in terms of time and resources owing to the fact that a greater proportion may have more complex needs and/or are more likely to be perpetrators of domestic abuse with the associated public protection requirements and expectations?

With the re-design of probation and the return of all offender management responsibilities to the National Probation Service – plus the creation of 12 new Probation Delivery Partners who will be delivering Unpaid Work and accredited programmes in the new probation regions – the topic of the size of probation caseloads is very much under discussion again. So I am very glad to report not only that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation has commissioned a rapid evidence assessment (REA) into probation caseloads but that Chris Fox’s team from the Policy Evaluation and Research Unit at Manchester Metropolitan University and myself will be undertaking the REA. We will, of course, be interrogating all the normal academic databases and specialist probation journals for the best research evidence. However, we already know that there is relatively little formal research on probation caseloads. Therefore, the main purpose of this blog post is to ask readers whether any of you know of any unpublished studies or research on probation caseloads and/or workloads, including links to related factors. 

We are particularly interested in evaluations which look at the impact of changing caseload figures, whether that be on reconviction rates, sentence completions, staff sickness and/or wellbeing levels or any other indicator. If you are aware of any of this “grey” literature, Chris, myself and the rest of the team would be very grateful if you let us know. Please get in touch via this email link: I’d like to share information for the probation caseloads research
As befits a Rapid Evidence Assessment, this piece of work has a rapid turnaround and we expect to complete it in early 2020 with the expectation that HMI Probation will publish the findings later next year.

Russell Webster

Drowning Not Waving

Seen on Facebook:-

This week I am feeling completely drained from work. I have done something this week that will most certainly impact on me time wise in the next week or so. Guess what I did ? I have spent a grand total of 7.5 hours of actually supervising cases this week, doing some actual intervention, relationship building, home visits and supporting a case to an appointment and managing risk. It’s been emotionally draining because the majority are high risk. But, it’s been worth some of the outcome from it. Not all cases were happy, but I did get a high five today from my most challenging and aggressive case - which was worth it! I have made my self reflect on my practice today, especially after Panorama. Whilst I remain worried of what I do, what we do is right - am I assessing risk correctly? Am I being risk adverse? etc, this week I really feel I have put my all in. I am knackered beyond belief by the emotional impact this job has at times, but I am proud of what I do, what we all do. It feels good to create the time in an ever increasing busy job to actually be able spend time with the people that need it the most, this is what I signed up to do. Trying to be positive is really hard at the moment, we all get those moments when we know we make a difference. Stay positive people.

Fantastic!!! A really heartening post and exactly why we all joined the service!!! We're all risk averse, particularly at the moment, but trust in your judgement, you know your cases best remember!

The face to face jobs you accomplished today are examples of what we used to do because case loads were lower and there wasn't as much bureaucracy n duplication as we have today. This was why we chose this profession to rehabilitate support assist change and constructively challenge offenders.... all this underpinned with compassion understanding empathy to help the offender to change. Whilst this was done we assessed risks AND had the time to reflect n confer with colleagues. Cases were discussed we had a good grasp of other colleagues cases... today there is not time to implement real quality in the job. And yes you feel emotionally exhausted but at the same time there are also positiveness to gain like you experienced hence the high five with the offender. I felt so many negative emotions when it was clear that the government didn't have a clue what this profession is about and neither does the public, therefore if the government had a slight knowledge of our work they manipulated their way thru public ignorance.

Well done you!! It’s so hard to keep going at times like this but you are ace to still have the resolve to give it 110%. Xx

Great post. Years back. I was in a queue of people when a man came up to me who I didn't recognise, he took my hand and greeted me like an old friend. Told me what a difference I had made to his life whilst he was on CS that he now had his own business, he knew my name, asked after my xxxxxx and then gave me a big hug. I obviously smiled and told him how thrilled I was. But I had not got a clue who he was. There had been so many offenders I had met over the years. Just remember when you struggle to do your jobs, the offender's maybe one of many hundreds you meet and deal with over the years but to them you at the time when they need it, you are their focus, they may not show it but you are their life line. If you can in a crazy bloody world make a difference to just someone then hold your head and be proud and don't give up.

Remember back in the day (it seems so long ago now) when Managers used to supervise you about the work you did with clients and the emotional impact it might have had, rather than just ensuring that you have ticked the right boxes in time?

What a wonderful post. I’m so fed up of ticking boxes and data entry.

I'm taking time off. Exhausted beyond belief.

Hold on to good practice it makes a difference!

I feel drained. Just had leave and found it hard to totally let go of work issues.

I left the service earlier this year as the job has changed beyond belief and do I miss it......do I hell.

--oo00oo--

Do any other CRC colleagues` experience SPO bullying whole team via email rather than having the balls to come out of their office and ask their team questions regarding performance. Then giving it a couple of hours and hitting the whole team with another bullying email. Funnily this is the response to a poor inspection where, ok failings in meeting performance targets around reducing reoffending (allegedly), but also where poor staff morale and no confidence in bullying managers was of grave concern. At this point there is not one PSO or PO within the team who wouldn't walk if they could afford to........

Not my experience in my CRC. We have a very supportive and transparent SPO - so much so that she gave up her office and sits in the open office with her team!

Good to hear that, we had a really good management team till the split when both SPOs ended up in NPS........

The irony is it is bullying from top down, the Company that own us were so appalled by morale from the staff survey at beginning of year that they forced us to go to events to talk about why we were unhappy, many not able to be honest as their managers were in the same room...... We then have the inspection and now further monthly meetings with ACO and SPO present where we are supposed to talk about how we make things better...... FFS this from an organisation where we at coal face deal in motivating people to change, take responsibility for their actions and show empathy.

'tis a familiar tale in HMPS too!

It’s like that in NPS too.

From high up the chain.

The culture has changed so much.I Remember when we were like a family ...now so different.

Since moving to our CRC office, our SPOs have sat in the general office with us. Now used to it, I prefer it. Must say ours are fantastically supportive and I've never been on the receiving end of any bullying from the current ones we have. I feel very lucky. Xx

Couldn't agree more.

I have but not from SPOs x

"bullying emails"! I'd be sending the bloody thing back with a reminder of the bullying & harassment policy. Cheeky sod.

We keep getting emails about - make sure you do your Arms, make sure HETE stuff on delius all done, make sure e learning done by such a date, get evidence for SPDRs. But we are coping with the accumulative effect of managing high caseloads for over a year - even tho things are reducing. It feels like there is little awareness from higher up the chain of the impact all this is having on staff.

It’s about time the police did their own ARMS assessments and it’s still not on the WMT.

Our team were told at a meeting (I wasn’t there) that the week an Arms is done that staff would be given 4 hours (I think ) on WMT - but all that means is that that PO would be four more hours over that week. We do have a PO who has come back to work who is purely doing some of our ARMS and other staff are being offered overtime to complete.

The police in our area have been doing them as overtime. Tbh I think we have enough to do by doing the OASys!

Exactly!! I often feeling like we are drowning.

Why do they keep piling more work on us knowing full well it is a risk assessment for the police?

I got the feeling it was our thing to do now.

SPO needs to prioritise your workload & agree on what can be missed/delayed (written agreement of course) if your WMT level is excessive... complete the stress assmt (can't recall its proper name).

Not so bad now it’s just the effect of the last year.

Since TR - the levels of caseloads aren't sustainable long-term...

Recent consultation with my manager re a Bit of a Situation. (No immediate or even medium term risk) The response re priorities "Never mind all that humanistic stuff for now... Get into Delius and make sure all entries are in for performance" Nuff said.

Managers have to send out the info to staff - it's part of their responsibilities and they are probably measured/reviewed on it. If staff are being asked to undertake unrealistic tasks then managers need to be told so they can feed it back up. If comms are seen as bullying then managers should be told. Everyone is under pressure, managers, SCMs, CMs, POs, PSOs, CAs - we all need to feed it back up and note it at every opportunity. If you can't do a task detail why - 'Due to time constraints this assessment has not been thoroughly completed..'Due to a lack of resources I did not have access to the information required to complete this/those tasks..' Any concerns then contact your Napo reps and let's all support each other :-)

--oo00oo--

Have NPS colleagues noticed a sudden pressure from management forcing us to use the CRC's rate card services? I wonder why?

Yes.... even when the RARS they offer are not suitable for everyone.

Well I'm CRC and I have never ever heard of this concept before. Can any explain? What might the services be which CRCs have to offer?

An example is the Getting it Right programme in prisons. If the NPS want an NPS service user to go on the programme we have to purchase it off the rate card via an NSI.

It’s just more work to do on top of everything else.

We were supposed to start using them 3 years ago, but MTC Novo only published their rate card earlier this year. We need to start using the budget that was set aside for purchasing services or we’ll a) lose it and b) can’t commission alternative services until we’ve shown we tried to purchase them from the CRC. Email me at work and I’ll give you more detail.

Maybe CRC management have told them that CRCs not making enough money.

I am wondering whether these services might be available for CRC service users without CRC staff being aware.

I'm sure part of the CRC package sold by MoJ was that they would have the interventions from NPS as a source of income. However, CRC is expensive and NPS haven't been using them.

That is right, but now we have been told that we have to .. couldn’t make it up could you.

But I suppose it's about time, maybe if NPS had been doing it from the get go, CRC wouldn't be in so much financial difficulty.

Yea that’s true.

I don't think it's all RARs is it? Just ETE and programmes? But I think NPS have stopped recommending programmes in court.

I’m not sure .. I’ve had two orders come through with Rars.

We very rarely get recommendations for resolve,TSP or DID - think we’ve had one programme of each run in past year!

As said above the CRC's are failing and the Govmt are trying to bail them out by directing management in the NPS to force their staff to use the services. The rate card system is a lucrative source of income for the CRC's.

True, but I think it's a shame that MoJ have to make NPS do it. If it was part of the original agreement, why wouldn't they want to make sure their colleagues are kept in work? I bloody hate what the MoJ have done!

Good point. It's a moral dilemma. I don't feel good about buying services that aid the continuation of the CRC's but don't want to do anything that places colleagues jobs at risk. The sooner these contracts are ended and probation is unified again the better!

Napo At Work in the South West 9

Following on from yesterday's demands to bring Probation in Wales back into public control, here we have some recent email exchanges from another part of the Working Links empire that indicates all is not well. As always, thanks go to the Napo member and reader for keeping us informed:-

South South Western Branch
CRC Members - WORKLOAD INDICATOR 26/07/2017

Members,
By now you will have read the WL Justice News 24/07/2017 and mention of the Workload Indicator tool.

Please note that the statement within this newsletter "This has been approved by the Operations Board following a period for review by managers and Unions." is construed to be somewhat misleading. The facts are that at no time have NAPO Representatives had sight of their management resources allocator prior to its release . There has been no short sides dialogue or setting out of timings and nothing under the duty of care from health and safety or what should be organised under our terms in the WPEC agreements that WL have so far refused point blank to actually look at to honour.

Some reps from BGSW and Wales may have had some cursory conversations in this but the fact remains that DDC Napo SSW branch have previously reminded Mr Wiseman during the last ACAS meeting that we are three seperate organisations and three seperate Napo Branches. You have not elected Representatives from Wales and BGSW to act on your behalf and yet again this reference to Unions within the Justce News is distorted and UNISON do not represent us . So often we hear the coments from Managers that the Unions have been involved therby misrepresenting to encourage an assumption that the Unions have agreed. This is not neccessarily the fault of the Line Management as they are most likley passing on what they have been told, although we are aware that some do blatantly mislead and directly claim agreements knowing these are just not true.

The important thing to note is that you have elected local reps to deal with all matters relating to your terms. By deliberately failing to consult properly with your representatives from all three branches they bypass the agreed collective bargaining arrangements to consultation with your local Branch.

We are likely to see more propoganda and misleading material as such misleading statements are nothing new in the history of Justice News. Next time you do see or hear such statements ask which Branch it has been agreed with, who the reps were,what date was the official meeting where is a signed agreement and then check with myself or Dino and tell them your going to do that before any acceptance of the position they propose.

Given that DDC SSW branch have not been privy to this consultation nor has any information been passed to us for consideration we advise members not to recognise this porcess until consultation has included DDC Branch Reps.

Denice James
JNCC Rep

--oo00oo--

Dear Denice

I was very disappointed, not to say disturbed, to read the message which you sent out yesterday to your members which I have copied below for ease of reference:

For the avoidance of all doubt and in order to set the record straight, I attach, below, a copy of the e mail that was sent to yourself and all the official NAPO and Unison representatives across both BGSW and DDC by Elaine Berk on my behalf on 12 June, 2017, inviting comments in writing in relation to the Workload Indicator Tool and Guidance, copies of which were issued with that e mail.

You were, yourself, party to the early discussions re the development of a workload measurement tool and you will know very well from the discussions that we have had with the Unions over recent months that there has been an open invitation to the Unions across all 3 CRCs to participate in the working group developing the Workload Indicator.

To suggest, therefore, that the process to date has not included DDC Branch reps is not only disingenuous but it is simply not true.

The fact that neither you nor your colleagues chose to submit any comments in writing or otherwise during the consultation period does not negate the process of consultation and having followed that process we are now entirely within our rights to implement the Workload Indicator Tool as indeed we are now doing.

You also make reference to the WPEC Agreement, the contents of which have been thoroughly reviewed in the course of the development of the Workload Indicator Tool and incorporated as appropriate, as the e mail below confirms.

Regardless of whatever advice you may give your members, meanwhile, please be under no illusions that this can in any way prevent the legitimate use of the tool which is designed, when all is said and done, to assist managers and staff to ensure that no individual staff member is required to undertake more than a reasonable workload.

To summarise, therefore, the workload indicator tool has been the subject of a consultation process, whether or not you have chosen to participate in that process. This does not require Union agreement and managers will be applying the workload indicator tool with immediate effect, with or without the explicit consent of individual staff members but for the benefit of those individuals and to ensure an equitable and manageable distribution of the work within teams.

I am asking Elaine Berk to issue this e mail to all staff so that they can see for themselves exactly what the process has been and as I say, the tool will be implemented across all case management teams with immediate effect.

PS a separate version of the Workload Indicator is currently in development for staff in interventions and CP and this, too, will be subject to a similar consultation process prior to formal implementation.

Dear colleagues:
We are issuing this Workload Indicator and guidance to managers today. We have asked managers to test this with their teams and give feedback so that we can make adjustments or improvements if required. Your feedback will also be appreciated and should be submitted, in writing to myself by close of play on 28th June.

The tool is an indicator only and cannot be a perfect measure. However what it will do is highlight where workload appears to be excessive, ensure conversations with individuals begin and that steps are taken as appropriate to address excessive workload within the framework of the guidance.

If you need further explanation on how the points have been arrived at we can arrange this for you as we know the union rep was unable to attend all the meetings on the development of the tool.

We have looked at the Devon and Cornwall Probation Area WPEC agreement from 2006 which was based on the old NWMT, including measurements for current NPS activities that are no longer relevant. The work done to develop this new tool will match to the CRC tasks and give a useful indicator for staff and managers on workload. Nevertheless we appreciate the principles contained in the WPEC and aim to have covered these in the new guidance for managers.

Specifically regarding the 6 Criteria in section 3.1. we confirm the WLI and guidance includes that:

1. Managers accept responsibility to ensure staff do not carry excessive workloads and manage resources accordingly.
2. We have developed a new mechanism for monitoring the workload of staff.
3. We have guidance for managers on what they can do where an assessed workload exceeds an acceptable level
4. We have a mechanism where staff can approach managers should their workload become excessive.
5. We have not got a defined list of tasks that can be set aside if a workload is excessive but see 3 above which should address this.
6. Expects managers to ensure workload does not exceed acceptable levels where new tasks are assigned.

John Wiseman
Probation Director

South West Community Rehabilitation Companies (covering Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire(BGSW CRC) and Dorset, Devon and Cornwall (DDC CRC))

--oo00oo--

South South Western Branch 
BRANCH UPDATE 31 JULY 2017

Dear Members,
You may have seen Mr. Wiseman’s response to my previous Branch Message issued 26th July 2017. Despite his statements we remain in dispute and the matter of Workload Management is one of the many topics included. The Workload Indicator Tool is a workload resource allocation tool and NOT a workload weighting calculator for staff. Requests for shortsides discussion on such matters were originally ignored prior to the dispute and now in dispute it has not gone through the national dispute process. Let me assure you that myself and your Branch Chair Dino Peros would not agree any matter outside of that process. We are currently waiting for the date of the next meeting to be confirmed.

Members can draw their own conclusions but WPEC was raised as far back as February 2015 by us. We raised it formally in dispute at ACAS on November 22 2016 and this has become a dominant H&S issue raised again at the last dispute meeting at ACAS on 5 June 2017. This issue remains in dispute and there has been no real or genuine attempt to form working proposals.

To claim I am disingenuous is laughable yet then to state the meaning of the word illustrates a desperate and harsh stance.

I can confirm that I have received support for my comments from a UNISON colleague who reports a similar message will be issued to their members in DDC as there has been no agreement from them either on this issue.

John Wiseman states that he is disappointed and disturbed by my statement. Well the SSW Branch have been disturbed since the start of this whole process and the mention of potential redundancies. We were disturbed and disappointed when WL decided to ignore the EVR process and offered VS. They were well aware that so many staff were desperate to leave that they could let people go on the cheap. We continue to be disturbed and disappointed on an almost daily basis when listening to member’s reports of bullying from management, excessive workloads and inappropriately allocated cases.

Members we will continue to reject these failing policies and will keep you posted. This message has been sent openly to all members given John’s choice to do so.

If you have read this and not a member then come and join your local Branch. We are stronger together.

Denice James
JNCC / Staff Rep

--oo00oo--

On the subject of consultation generally, this looks interesting:-
UNISON in Court of Appeal victory over employers who fail to consult unions

UNISON has won a landmark court victory today (Friday) that makes it much harder for employers to ignore staff when making major changes in the workplace. The Court of Appeal ruling means that for the first time employers will be obliged to consult with unions around any workplace issues that affect their members.

Until now, unions only had the right to be consulted where the law required this, for example in TUPE regulations where employees transfer from one employer to another, and in redundancy cases. The ruling means employers will also have to involve unions in issues such as those around working hours and holiday pay. It will benefit thousands of employees whose rights at work are under threat and means that employers will face greater scrutiny over their treatment of staff, says UNISON.

The victory came about after the union took up a case involving parks police who were made redundant by the London Borough of Wandsworth. The Court of Appeal ruled that UNISON had the right to be consulted by Wandsworth over the job losses.

UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: 

“This is the second major legal victory in a week for working people. It means that employees in any workplace where there’s a union will now benefit from greater protection at work. The message to bosses is they will have to treat their staff more fairly over pay and working conditions. If they fail to consult unions then they will be acting unlawfully and could be taken to court.”

New Year - Same Issues

Seen on Facebook over New Year:-

Happy new TR year! Did others experience what I did before Xmas. Us CRCs tearing our hair out for fear of losing our jobs and trying to get people to report, whilst the NPS downstairs played board games! That's my Xmas 2016 experience. I even had an NPS OM say come down and join us!

I'm a PO for the NPS and it was nothing like that in my office.

Wasn't like that in our NPS office either 

Not like that in my NPS office. Been way over WMT for months

Happy new year to you too. Had to respond though as I know far too many NPS colleagues who are also tearing their hair out but for slightly different reasons... you know, those nightmare very high risk cases.. those parole reports.. those high caseloads where you don't have time to do the work you need to do, and where your professional standards don't allow you to compromise the service you give so you risk burning yourself out on a daily basis. 

TR has caused a shit storm on both sides of the divide. We don't need to fuel that fire by the endless comparisons to whose side is worse off. 

Personally I can't wait to get back after being on maternity leave.... from everything I'm hearing it just sounds like an awesome environment to be going back to...

I don't normally comment but I agree with you, let's not make sweeping statements that further divide this job - employers may have changed but the value base that's drives us has not. Happy new year xx

NPS PSO here and no board games - too many cases and dual location working for that.

I don't normally comment but I think both NPS and CRC have very difficult jobs. Lack of staff, high caseloads, endless processes and procedures. I feel my role now is polar opposite to the one I started 15 years ago. It is thankless and grueling at times. I sometimes mourn for what was and hope that one day things will change, but alas hold little hope. 

Doesn't matter what side we now find ourselves on I think many people feel the same. We need to respect and support our colleagues we are all trying our best in difficult circumstances. I hope 2017 improves for you xx

Imagine me 30 years gone 4th December 2016, nothing whatsoever like the job I started and loved! Join the service now....erm no thanks, the only thing that hasn't changed are the nice people and the dedication to keeping communities safer for all...... Happy new year my confident competent committed colleagues!

I have worked in a AP for the last 8 years and I handed in my notice on the 26th I can't tell you the relief that I felt handing it in! Have a good new year everyone!

To be honest as soon as I find somewhere else I am out of the service. I do admin for NPS. Not my original role as I was redeployed after the PSO cull in 2012. I recently took the opportunity to apply again for the PSO roles that were advertised through an external company and got told no as I had not passed their situational judgement test - that has crap all to do with being a PSO. I did the PSO role for 7 years. So as soon as I can I am telling Probation to take my job and fill it. It seems a waste after all that studying and doing that job both here and back home in Xxxxxxxx for several years. But after 11 years nah not for me anymore. The new ones they are going to get in won't know anything critical to the role and there will be new Hanson and White/Sonnex cases. Not for me. At the moment I can honestly say I'm doing it for the money and working with the small team I have. My motivation is gone, my commitment to the job ha I'm more committed to finding the odd socks in my drawer. Sorry Probation this is your own doing to loose staff some even more experienced and longer service records than me. Sorry rant over - Happy new year!

No...in our NPS office...CRC had left by one yesterday leaving NPS to deal with three prison releases! 

It's chaotic and stressful on both sides. I've worked for both. The scenario you describe must be very unusual. Hope things improve in the New Year but not holding out much hope.