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