Napo at Work in the South West 22

Shortages of staff and high caseloads have been regular themes of HMI reports of late, not surprising really given the TR omnishambles. Regular readers will be aware of the long-running battle Napo had with Working Links in the South West and according to this sent recently to members, it seems things are not going too well under the new Seetec management:-

Dear Napo members

Guidance for Case Managers

The guidance for case management was circulated late today and to date remains a non-consulted and not agreed position with the unions. While NAPO Unison will want to engage an agreement for fair workloads and ensure all tasks are properly weighted this document yet again carries no calculations for how long tasks actually take and are agreed. Indeed what essential tasks are and especially while we carry so many staff absences. Having met the senior management team this week in Cardiff it is clear there is a lot of talk but little real action in terms of a structured emergency plan that tackles immediately the urgency specified in the recent HMIP report. Eight week on and all we see is this? To this end we in Napo remain staggered at the impasse of the senior management not taking full responsibility for their failings of the model the workloads the situation the HMIP reports. Nor indeed take one of the HMIP recommendations to actually work collaboratively to straighten at any level the crisis of workloads facing staff.

The original workloads weightings employee care agreement carries six defined assurances that stem directly from health and safety legislation in order to protect you from excessive stressful working conditions. You will notice the interim chief officers document. We have to speculate they really do not want to reduce your workloads or allow you the freedom to exercise your right to self-protection. None of the six assurance and these form a collective agreement in your terms appear in the circulation to date. I urge members to continue to utilise the only collective and formal agreement of the WPEC and where possible of course follow the appropriate case management needs as suggested today. However your well- being and overwork comes first and that is your actual priority. The recirculated WPEC has the procedures for you there.

As Chair of the branch I am disappointed that on first major meeting with the Seetec authorities there appears to be no change in direction since Working Links were shown the door. There is no mellowing of approach to collaboration with the unions and to date there is a continued paralyses to actually work in a way that demonstrates real employee care. They actually rejected the opportunity to provide a moratorium for all staff on all issues post the incredible appalling news in the HMIP report itself. That said we all knew how bad that was going to be. Following this they have promised a pay deal and retracted it faster than light. They further were not really skilled up enough to understand the pay differentials that exist across the many grades whilst talking about staff recognitions. I will detail this shortly in a fuller branch report. On top of all that they did mention KSS caseloads as a 40-60 process but amazingly they do not have their case management model in writing at all to share the knowledge.

Dino Peros, Napo Branch Chair SSW.

--oo00oo--

Workload Indicator Case Management 

1. Context 

1.1 The South West and Wales Probation Services recognise their duty of care to ensure that the work of their staff is allocated and organised in such a way that workloads can be effectively managed. 

1.2 In order to meet this objective a Workload Indicator has been developed to reflect the current contract and operating model and which incorporates all aspects of operational delivery. 

1.3 The first release of this tool covers Case Management and incorporates a weighting for rurality. The assumptions underpinning the Workload Indicator are explained in the relevant document, (see Appendix A). 

1.4 Workloads should be equitable. Each member of the South West and Wales divisions should be able to request a review of their workload with their manager if their workload is excessive. Each member is also expected to follow any guidance that will help them manage their work (e.g. contact frequencies and the use of community hubs). 

1.5 This does not mean that all numeric caseloads will be the same as the make-up of a caseload will depend upon the amount of time each case needs and these will vary according principally to their BRAG status and the specific circumstances of each individual. Similarly, the different accredited programmes and RARs will require different resources. 

1.6 For Case Management, we have developed a Workload Indicator aligned to the 4.10 report and reflecting the volume of cases, the BRAG weightings and the available time for direct work with service users. The indicator will reflect the number of hours worked by each Case Manager on direct Case Management with service users. The available time is consistent with the available time calculation in the workload measurement tools previously used in Wales and BGSW. After deductions for average allowances of leave, sickness and training a further allowance is made for non-direct work such as attending team, other meetings and supervision. 

1.7 The weightings (points) are aligned to the time allowed for case management according to each case’s BRAG status. They reflect the need to provide the greatest resource to work with those service users who present the greatest risk of harm, likelihood of reoffending or potential for disengagement at any point in time. Public protection remains a key priority. This includes the safeguarding of children and adults. Timings used to develop the operating model (from the pilots in CRCs) are average timings and professional judgement will still need to be applied to ensure that resources are targeted where they will have greatest positive impact. 

1.8 The Workload Indicator enables Managers to identify where workloads are either above or below a threshold so that they can make any necessary adjustments for individuals and/or within the team. The threshold is 100 points. This threshold will take account of the Case Manager’s working hours (FTE). The Team Manager will take into account any adjustments required for individuals for health, performance or other personal reasons (e.g. phased return to work) and also take into account any duties being undertaken on behalf of others (e.g. to cover absence). They will consider any adjustments needed for those who are new in post, recognising that this may depend upon prior experience and exceptional training/Induction requirements. They will also apply the rurality factor as appropriate. 

1.9 Where the team exceeds their collective threshold, then the Manager should discuss this with their LDU head (Assistance Chief Officer), having first established that every effort is being made to work according to the operating model. 

1.10 Where adjustments cannot be made within LDU resources, the LDU head (Assistance Chief Officer), will discuss this with their Chief Officer who will consider whether any adjustments can be made across the division. 

1.11 The Senior Management Group will review the outputs from the Workload Indicator together with the current resource requirement, performance and quality data on a quarterly basis. This will inform ongoing workforce planning and resource deployment. 

2. How to use the Workload Indicator 

2.1 The Team Manager will review the Workload Indicator points with the Case Manager in a supervision session. They will also use this information when providing availability for new allocations and when allocating specific duties (e.g. MARAC attendance, Induction groups) or reports. 

2.2 The first action they will take will be to ensure that workloads are being managed according to the Operating model. The Operating Model has been developed by the CRCs after pilots, to reflect evidence-based approaches to desistance .This should in itself reduce current workload pressures. They will check the following actions with the Case Manager: 

a) That there is an up-to-date BRAG review, so that the resource required to manage the case has been assessed to take account of all current dynamic risk factors and their potential likelihood, impact and timescale. 

b) That the contact levels for the service user reflect this BRAG status (see latest version of Practice Direction for the Minimum Contact specification v1.3, Appendix B) 

c) That all cases have been terminated by due date.

d) That all cases that are assessed as suitable for the single requirement team will be allocated to that team according to current guidance. 

e) That where there is a community hub, all Amber cases will be given appointments to attend there, unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g. any current structured 1-1 RAR work or work relating to safeguarding or domestic abuse). 

f) That all IOM cases will have a BRAG status of either Red or Red/Amber. Where cases are assessed as Amber or below, then it may be appropriate to have discussions with IOM partners regarding their suitability for the IOM scheme. You will be advised by your Manager about this. 

g) Any cases that have successfully completed their requirements and sentence plan objectives have been considered for early revocation. 

h) The sentence plan should be reviewed to determine how many RAR days are needed to complete the objectives. This will be a case by case decision. The rationale for the use of the days and any decision to use less than the maximum number of days should be person-centred and clearly recorded. 

i) Referrals should be made to RAR groups wherever and when these are available, and the service user meets the criteria. 

j) Services provided by partner agencies should be used to capacity as these have been designed to meet specific service user needs (e.g. Women’s services) 

k) Any impact on the achievement of performance metrics will have been minimised and any risks flagged to the LDU head. 

2.3 A checklist (see Appendix C) is attached for use by Case Managers when preparing for discussion with their Managers. 

2.4 If the above steps have been taken and the workload remains excessive, the Team Manager will work with the Case Manager to develop a plan, with timescales, to reduce the workload. This may include using some of the additional measures detailed below. It is recognised that workloads fluctuate and any forthcoming changes to workloads will be considered as part of any review (e.g. number of cases due to terminate shortly) 

3. Additional Measures 

In some circumstances additional measures may be required until more permanent solutions can be put in place (e.g. pending recruitment). These must be agreed by the LDU head (Assistance Chief Probation Officer) who will make a record of where and for how long they will be in place. Some key principles should apply to any workload prioritisation with public protection paramount. 

Key priorities: 

• Court reports- breach; DRR; ATR etc 
• Recalls 
• Activity relating to assessing and managing risk of harm/safeguarding 
• Seeing those service users presenting the greatest risk of harm (Red and Red/Amber cases or others where risk is increasing) 
• Seeing services users newly allocated/released 
• Sentence and risk management plans 
• Seeing service users who have not been seen in the last 6 weeks (monthly appointments should be planned for all those in scope of AMK) 
• Action to enforce 

Examples of measures that have been in DDC, BGSW and Wales CRC contracts, are as follows: 

• Where service users are currently engaged in an accredited programme, DRR, ATR, RAR or SAC, telephone contact with the Case Manager can be sufficient to support progress and ensure that any issues are addressed or contact levels reduced, with manager agreement (recorded on contact log as Management Oversight). In Red or Red/Amber cases where there are active risks of serious harm it will need to be clear that this approach should provide adequate risk management and specify timescales. 
• Contact frequencies can be reduced, with manager approval (recorded on contact log as Management Oversight) when the service user is making good progress. 
• Contact should be maintained at a minimum monthly level for cases in scope for performance metric AMK (the criteria is covered in Appendix B). In order to enable this to happen, and where community hubs are not established, teams may wish to run contact sessions in the office. If the service user will see an Officer who is not the Responsible Officer, they should be named as the designated Case Manager in the sentence plan. 
• Any further temporary measures must be agreed by the LDU head (Assistance Chief Probation Officer) who will assess the potential impact upon public protection and contractual requirements and then refer the proposal to the Chief Officer for approval to enable business continuity.