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.